(1)
To study or not to study? The political
discourse surrounding bursaries 1953-2015
Master’s thesis in Sociology, track Cultural Sociology
Marijn Knieriem
10018735
marijnknieriem@hotmail.com
30 June 2016
Supervisor: dr. K. de Keere
Second reader: drs. R.J.A.M. Hulst
18403 words
Abstract
This thesis is concerned with how the concept of neo-liberalism can help to understand the
discourse surrounding bursaries in the Netherlands from 1953 to 2015. Neo-liberalism is a
complex notion, i.e., it consists of multiple dimensions. In this study, these different dimensions
are separated from one another, in order to make the concept more manageable. Subsequently,
the results of a qualitative analysis of parliamentary documents are discussed. Based on this
analysis, this thesis answers the question whether a discursive shift towards neo-liberalism can
be observed in the analyzed period. It was found that such a shift was observed in some
dimensions of neo-liberalism, but not in all. Based on this result, some suggestions are provided
for how the notion of neo-liberalism can be improved.
2
Table of contents
1. Introduction p. 3
2. Theoretical framework p. 4
2.1 Neo-liberalism p. 4
2.2 The dissemination of the logic of the market p. 5
2.3 Education p. 9
3. Research question p. 12
4. Method and data p. 13
4.1 Method p. 13
4.2 Data p. 15
5. Findings p. 17
5.1 The framing of education p. 17
5.2 An ontology or a constructivist project? p. 22
5.3 Individuality, self-responsibility and insecurity p. 24
5.4 An all-encompassing discourse? p. 28
5.5 Is maximal economic growth the sole endeavor of social policy? p. 33
5.6 Personal development: a goal in itself or merely a road towards a higher income? p. 37
5.7 Measuring and increasing effectiveness p. 39
5.8 Financialization p. 42
6. Conclusion and discussion p. 47
Bibliography p. 49
3
1. Introduction
Since 1953, the Dutch government supports almost all students in higher education. From this
moment on, bursaries have been an almost constantly debated subject in the political arena
(Slaman, 2015). Should the financial support go directly to the students, or instead to their
parents? How high should the monthly allowance be? And should the student graduate within a
certain period of time in order to qualify for a bursary? Questions like these have been at stake
in the political debates surrounding the financial support of students. The most recent
amendment to the Dutch policy on bursaries has been the abolishment of allowances as a gift.
Instead, students now have to borrow in order to finance their studies (although this can be
done at a very low interest rate). After 62 years, the Dutch government thus no longer has the
ambition to provide students with allowances in the form of gifts to support them financially
during their period in higher education (Slaman, 2015, p. 166).
In the course of history, education has been seen as an instrument to realize several
goals. Inter alia, it was seen as a way to provide equal chances to all, as a means to prepare
young people for the labor market, and as an instrument to socialize children (Elffers & Van de
Werfhorst, 2013). However, several authors have argued that, in the last couple of decades,
education has become more neo-liberal (e.g. Apple, 2001; 2005; Giroux, 2002; Olssen & Peters,
2005). The concept of neo-liberalism refers to the endeavor to create competition in every social
domain, by employing the tools and language that is developed in the scientific discipline of
economics (Foucault, 2008). In neo-liberalism, the purpose of social policy is reduced to
generating economic growth and results in the demolition of collective arrangements (Foucault,
2008, p. 144). Given the claim that neo-liberalism has also influenced education, this thesis is
concerned with the following research question: how can the concept of neo-liberalism help to
understand the discourse surrounding bursaries in the Netherlands from 1953 to 2015?
There are two aspects to this question. The first is concerned with a discursive shift: can
a shift towards neo-liberalism be observed in the discourse surrounding bursaries in the
Netherlands in the period from 1953 to 2015? In order to answer this question, a qualitative
analysis of parliamentary documents has been conducted.
Providing suggestions for how the notion of neo-liberalism could be improved forms the
second aspect of this research question. Neo-liberalism is an often employed concept. It is also a
complex notion, i.e. it consists of multiple dimensions. By separating the different elements of
neo-liberalism from each other, it is possible to judge which elements of the notion are useful for
understanding the political discourse surrounding bursaries, and which elements are not
particularly helpful. By doing this, we can provide suggestions about which dimensions of the
concept deserve to be retained, and which elements need to be abandoned.
4
This thesis is organized as follows. We will first turn to a discussion of the literature
about neo-liberalism and its relationship to education. Then, the concept of neo-liberalism will
be operationalized. Hereafter, the research method and approach will be discussed: some
methodological reflections will be provided and the data will be discussed. After this, the
findings will be presented. This thesis will be ended with a conclusion and a discussion.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Neo-liberalism
A good starting point to discuss neo-liberalism is Foucault’s (2008) lecture series entitled The
Birth of Biopolitics. First of all, Foucault argues in these lectures that neo-liberalism should be
distinguished from liberalism (pp. 117-121, 130-131). In liberalism, the homo œconomicus is
considered to be the “man of exchange” (p. 225). Economic activity is the exchange of goods with
one another, and the liberal homo œconomicus is one of the partners in this exchange. It is based
on the idea that individuals derive utility from the satisfaction of needs. This utility will be
maximized if people are able to trade with each other without interference of the state. Hence, in
liberalism, the market is a domain that should be left alone; laissez-faire is thus the correlative
policy of a liberal homo œconomicus. The state should merely provide the necessary conditions
such that the market can function as a place where exchange between equivalent partners can
take place. Therefore, the role of the state lies in ensuring that individual property rights are
respected (p. 118).
For Foucault, neo-liberalism is something different. Neo-liberalism does not start from
the idea of equivalence between two partners of exchange, but rather from the idea that “the
most important thing about the market is competition, that is to say, not equivalence but on the
contrary inequality” (p. 119). As a result, there is “the idea that the basic element to be
deciphered by economic analysis is not so much the individual, or processes and mechanisms,
but enterprises” (2008, p. 225). This leads to a new conception of the homo œconomicus. In neo-liberalism, the economic man is considered to be “an entrepreneur of himself … being for himself
his own capital, being for himself his own producer, being for himself the source of his earnings”
(p. 226). The level of capital that the entrepreneurial self is endowed with is not solely
determined by his nature, but also consists of acquired elements. Hence, it could be increased by
investments that target human capital (p. 227-232). With the enterprise as the basic unit of
analysis, the goal of neo-liberalism is to make sure that these enterprises will compete with one
another. Although competition is the most central aspect of the market for neo-liberalism, this is
not to say that competition is believed to be a natural aspect of it (Foucault, 2008, p. 120).
Rather, competition is something that has to be developed. Therefore, there is no need for a
5
retreating state, but for an active one: “Neo-liberalism should not therefore be identified with
laissez-faire, but rather with permanent vigilance, activity, and intervention” (p. 132).
Neo-liberalism is thus the endeavor to create the conditions such that competition
becomes possible and “can play a regulatory role at every moment and every point in society”
(Foucault, 2008, p. 145). Therefore, neo-liberalism is not an ontology, but rather a ‘constructivist
project’ (Brown, 2003, p. 4). The production of market-like structures is the sole purpose of neo-
liberalism. An implication of this very narrow ideal is found in the realm of social policy. Neo-liberalism is not interested in realizing some degree of equality in the distribution of wealth,
“but merely [in] ensuring a vital minimum for those who, either permanently or temporarily,
would not be able to ensure their own existence” (Foucault, 2008, p. 143). Neo-liberalism only
needs to avert the individual from falling below a minimum “that prevents the individual from
playing the game of competition” (Lazzarato, 2009, p. 128). If the individual stays above this
threshold, nothing else has to be done. Hence, cutbacks in government spending on social wages
are justified in neo-liberalism. This reform leads effectively to a transfer of wealth from the
group of people with low incomes to the group of people with high incomes (Harvey, 2007, p.
38-39).
Since the 1970s, neo-liberalism has influenced the political practices and thinking of
almost all of the world (Harvey, 2007). There was an endeavor to stimulate free trade, to create
markets were none existed, and to minimize interventions of the state in markets (Harvey,
2007). In the Netherlands, neo-liberalism became dominant in the 1980s (Touwen, 2008).
Economic growth was no longer expected from the state, but from the market (Touwen, 2008).
Fiscal discipline was considered to be more important for the state than stimulating the
economy while accepting a budget deficit; the state was thus no longer seen as responsible for
the realization of full employment (Touwen, 2008).
2.2 The dissemination of the logic of the market
One of the results of neo-liberalism is privatization, i.e., the introduction of the logic of the
market to domains that were formerly seen as spheres that should be kept free from this logic
(Foucault, 2008, p. 144; Harvey, 2007, p. 35-36). This means that collective arrangements to face
risk will be organized to a lesser extent. Rather, the economy should produce a sufficiently high
level of income, such that individuals have the necessary monetary means to choose for
themselves how they wish to deal with risks (p. 144). This leads Foucault to the conclusion “that
there is only one true and fundamental social policy: economic growth” (p. 144), since only
growth could ensure that individuals have sufficient means to insure themselves. The result of
the loss of collective arrangements and the sole focus on economic growth is that individuals
become more and more responsible for their own fate. Without a social safety net, individual
6
lives become more insecure (Lazzarato, 2009). Indeed, the neo-liberal goal at the macro-level of
producing market-like structures everywhere depends on and produces insecurity at the level of
the individual:
The administration of a great organized molar security has as its correlate a whole
micro-management of petty fears, a permanent molecular insecurity, to the point that
the motto of domestic policy-makers might be: a macro-politics of society by and for a
micro-politics of insecurity. (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, pp. 215-216)
This insecurity, however, is not the same for everyone. It is differentially distributed along the
different segments of society (Lazzarato, 2009, pp. 119-120). The working class, for example,
has got less financial means to deal with unexpected events than the professional class.
Neo-liberalism tries to transpose the logic of the market to all domains of human affairs.
It uses “the typical analyses of the market economy to decipher non-market relationships and
phenomena which are not strictly and specifically economic but what we call social phenomena”
(Foucault, 2008, p. 240). This is not to say that it is thought in neo-liberalism that people are
always and everywhere economic actors; it is not an “anthropological identification” (p. 252) of
the form ‘man = economic man’. Rather, it means that the analytical tools that are used in
economics serve as lenses to perceive any kind of behavior, also those kinds that traditionally
were not perceived as belonging to the economic realm. Gary Becker’s analysis of crime could
serve as an example (Foucault, 2008, pp. 250-253; Hamann, 2009, pp. 46-47). According to
Becker, criminal acts could be perceived in the same way as any other acts: they are rational to
the extent that they generate a positive balance when the costs and benefits of the illegal action
are weighed against each other. This implies that there is no essential difference between a
criminal and a law abiding citizen; both are involved in performing a cost-benefit analysis. The
only difference between the two is that the criminal expects some net benefits from committing
a crime, while the law abiding citizens expects a net loss.
This tendency of neo-liberalism to generalize the view of economics to every social
domain is emphasized by several authors (e.g. Apple, 2005; Bauman, 1999; Bourdieu, 1998;
Brown, 2003). They go one step further than Foucault does, however, since they do not only
claim that economic analyses are applied to everything. These authors add that economics
becomes more and more perceived as the only type of viable analysis; all other perspectives are
discredited as naïve, unrealistic or even immoral. As Bauman–in a paragraph entitled The world
no more essentially contested–puts it: “What … makes the neo-liberal world-view sharply
different from other ideologies–indeed, a phenomenon of a separate class–is precisely the
7
absence of questioning; its surrender to what is seen as the implacable and irreversible logic of
social reality” (Bauman, 1999, p. 128).
The use of tools from economics to analyze human behavior has the consequence that
“the individual becomes governmentalizable, that power gets a hold on him to the extent, and
only to the extent, that he is a homo œconomicus” (Foucault, 2008, p. 252). As Hamann explains:
“[neo-liberalism] begins with a conception of individuals as already rationally calculating,
individualized atoms of self-interest” (2009, p. 50, emphases in original). Indeed, only to the
extent that man is a homo œconomicus in the neo-liberal sense of the term, could his behavior be
described by economic analyses. Therefore, it is only to that extent that his responses are
predictable. Because of the “systematic nature of [his] responses to environmental variables”
(Foucault, 2008, p. 269), the “[h]omo œconomicus is someone who is eminently governable” (p.
270). It is important to note that Foucault is describing here a quite different power mechanism
than the one that is found in Discipline and Punish (Foucault, 1995). The ideas of normalization,
exclusion and the internalization of the gaze are not applicable to neo-liberal governmentality
(Foucault, 2008, p. 259).1
Governmental intervention in neo-liberalism “is an environmental
type of intervention instead of the internal subjugation of individuals” (p. 260). Power,
according to Foucault, influences conduct by affecting the free choices of individuals: “It is a total
structure of actions brought to bear upon possible actions; it incites, it induces, it seduces, it
makes easier or more difficult” (Foucault, 1983, p. 220).
The vision that the homo œconomicus is the man who is eminently governable, implies
that the ability to govern could be increased by producing people who behave as homines
œconomici. Indeed, neo-liberalism “aspires to construct prudent subjects whose moral quality is
based on the fact that they rationally assess the costs and benefits of a certain act as opposed to
other alternative acts” (Lemke, 2001, p. 201). Callon (1998) discusses how the production of
rationally calculating actors is supported by economics. Callon argues–contrary to what most
sociologists tend to say–that the homo œconomicus does in fact exist; the economic man does
however not exist as a natural and ahistorical phenomenon, but as a product of calculating
devices that are developed in the scientific discipline of economics. Callon calls this “the capacity
of economics in the performing (or what I call ‘performation’) of the economy” (p. 23).2
1
There are other authors, however, who claim that normalization and exclusion are essential parts of neo-liberalism.
See e.g. Rose (2008) and Fejes (2008).
2
An example of the role that economics plays in the performation of the economy is given by Miller and Rose (2008a).
They discuss how the technique of the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF) was spread throughout the United
Kingdom. DCF is a technique that takes into account the time value of money. The idea behind the time value of money
is that the money that someone has right now represents a higher value than the money that one has at a later time
(Berk & Demarzo, 2011, p. 56). The intuition behind this is that one can invest the money that one has right now,
which would generate a profit. This person would not have been able to reap these profits if he would have gotten the
money at a later moment in time. DCF techniques take this time value of money into account, and calculate which
investment is the most profitable. At a micro-level, the result is that investors can select the most profitable
investment. At the macro-level, these choices would result in economic growth: “‘Growth’ as an ideal to be sought, an
8
Besides the tools of economics, language is another important vehicle for the neo-liberal
project. The neo-liberal discourse has performative power, i.e., it is capable of creating the
reality that it supposedly describes; rather than being true at the moment that it is being said, it
becomes true after it has been said. The neo-liberal discourse has authority due to the scientific
status of economics and the symbolic capital that accompanies it, and is thereby capable of
distinguishing between the ‘realistic’ and the ‘unrealistic’ (Bauman, 1999, p. 127; Bourdieu,
1998). The result is that the world becomes more like it is described in the economic models.
The performativity of the neo-liberal discourse means that the distinction between discourse
and practice becomes fuzzy. Therefore, Miller and Rose can say that:
[a]n analysis of political discourse helps us elucidate not only the systems of thought
through which authorities have posed and specified the problems for government, but
also the systems of action through which they have sought to give effect to government.
(2008b, p. 57, emphasis in original)
To be more specific, the relationship between thought and action can be understood by seeing
political discourse “as a kind of intellectual machinery or apparatus for rendering reality
thinkable in such a way that it is amenable to political deliberations” (p. 59). This view is similar
to Foucault’s argument that ‘sex’ is not a natural phenomenon, but a construction that was
invented and made new ways of governing possible (Foucault, 1984 [1976], pp. 148-155). In
neo-liberalism, new modes of governing are made possible by conceiving man as a rational
actor:
It is now a matter not of modeling government on the rationality of the individual
sovereign who can say ‘me, the state’, but on the rationality of those who are governed as
economic subjects and, more generally, as subjects of interest in the most general sense
of the term. (Foucault, 2008, p. 312)
Lazzarato (2009) extends the notion of neo-liberalism of Foucault by pointing to an
aspect that the latter author did not discuss: financialization. The concept of financialization
refers to the fact that, in neo-liberalism, money is increasingly influential in structuring the
economy. However, this is not true of money in general. Deleuze and Guattari (1983) distinguish
between two kinds of money. The first type of money is money that is used as a means of
exchange (p. 228). It consists of one’s wages and can be used to buy things. Deleuze and Guattari
objective to be realized and a rationality by which to evaluate society was to be delivered in the final analysis not by
politicians and planners but by a multitude of local centres of calculation” (Miller & Rose, 2008a, p. 42).
9
call this kind of money ‘impotent’, because it can only respond to what is supplied by the
economy. The second kind of money–Deleuze and Guattari use the term ‘capital’ here–is found
on the balance sheets of firms and can, on the contrary, induce a “rearticulation of economic
chains” (p. 229). Deleuze and Guattari argue that these two kinds of money should be strictly
distinguished from each other: “Measuring the two orders of magnitude in terms of the same
analytical unit is a pure fiction … There is no common measure between the value of the
enterprise and that of the labor capacity of wage earners” (p. 230). The difference between the
two kinds of money lays in how they function. Capital is able to restructure the economy, to
change it; its role is active. Wages can only be spent in this economy. People can only buy what is
supplied in it, which in turn is determined by capital; wages, thus, play a reactive role. The result
is that wage-earners are to an increasing extent left at the mercy of how society and the
economy is organized, that is, at the mercy of those who own capital. As Lazzarato explains:
“Neoliberalism is basically a reprivatization of money, a reprivatization of the power to
determine and circumscribe what is possible” (2009, pp. 123-124).
In the above sections the concept of neo-liberalism was discussed. It consists of the
proliferation of forms of competition in every social domain. This is done by employing the tools
of economics and the language that originates in this discipline. The result is a very narrow ideal
of what should be achieved by social policy (namely generating economic growth) and a
resulting insecurity for individuals. The role of the state is limited to ensuring that competition
proliferates, which leaves ample space for capital to structure the economy. This begs the
question: is all this also found in the realm of education?
2.3 Education
For quite some time, scholars have argued that education is not neutral, i.e. that it does not
equally serve the interests of every group in society. Bourdieu and Passeron (2000) have argued
that curricula are constructed in such a way that they serve the interests of the dominant class.
The children from this class are better equipped than working-class children to reap the fruits of
their education, because the former have acquired cultural capital and a habitus during the first
years of their lives that endowed them with the right dispositions. The right dispositions in this
case means, on the one hand, the dispositions that are valued by teachers and therefore, via the
teachers’ appreciation of the students, help them to gain access to better schools; on the other
hand, these dispositions are right because they are closer to the habitus that constitutes the
desired end product of the pedagogic work that is done at schools. Apple also emphasizes the
power relationships that constitute education:
10
What counts as knowledge, the ways in which it is organized, who is empowered to teach
it, what counts as an appropriate display of having learned it, and–just as critically–who
is allowed to ask and answer all of these questions are part and parcel of how dominance
and subordination are reproduced and altered in this society. (1993, p. 222, emphasis in
original)
According to Apple (2001; 2005), education is still a site on which power is exercised,
but it is no longer exercised in the same way as before: education has become more neo-liberal.
This comes to the benefit of the middle class, since “middle class parents have become quite
skilled, in general, in exploiting market mechanisms in education and in bringing their social,
economic, and cultural capital to bear on them” (Apple, 2001, p. 415). Given Foucault’s (2008)
discussion of neo-liberalism, the neo-liberalization of education is hardly surprising. Indeed, in
neo-liberalism, people are perceived as ‘entrepreneurial selves’ who try to maximize the level of
human capital that they represent. This endeavor could be realized through education and
results in higher expected incomes for those with a diploma (p. 229). Hence, if the ascendancy of
neo-liberalism increases, education is likely to be one of the domains that is to be influenced by
it (Davies & Bansel, 2007). In Europe, the Bologna Declaration could serve as an example of the
effect of neo-liberalism on education (Fejes, 2008; Lorenz, 2006; 2012). The goal of the Bologna
agreement was to create a uniform system of universities in Europe, such that degrees became
comparable and competition between universities was encouraged. This was realized by the
introduction of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), in which the credit points function
as “the educational equivalent of the euro” (Lorenz, 2012, p. 612). The uniform system of
universities should increase the mobility and employability of citizens, and it was up to the
individual citizens themselves to take advantage of the opportunities that were given to them
(Fejes, 2008).
There is another reason why education is a target of neo-liberal reforms. This has to do
with the role of economic theory in the organization of higher education. Olssen and Peters
argue that in neo-liberalism “education is represented as an input–output system which can be
reduced to an economic production function” (2005, p. 324). This means, inter alia, that it is
increasingly narrowly defined what the result of education should be. This results in a loss of the
university as a domain that was relatively autonomous from market pressures. The market is
seen as the best arena to distinguish the worthwhile from the unworthy: “If academic research
has value, it can stand up to the rigors of competition for limited funds” (p. 328). One reason
why the intrusion of economic interests in the university became so severe is given by the
changing views of economists on the role of knowledge in economic development. Knowledge
became more and more perceived as the fuel for economic growth (pp. 330-340). The result was
11
that the value of universities was increasingly measured by their contribution to economic
production.
Giroux (2002) discusses the influence of corporate culture on the university, and what
further effects this influence has. Corporate culture is defined by Giroux as “an ensemble of
ideological and institutional forces that functions politically and pedagogically both to govern
organizational life through senior managerial control and to fashion compliant workers,
depoliticized consumers, and passive citizens” (p. 429). He argues that the search for profits is
increasingly ascendant in structuring the research that is done at universities, in defining the
academic curricula, and in limiting the future career perspectives of students. Giroux gives the
examples of a master’s program that is developed for Intel workers and another that is
established for employees of IBM (p. 449). Giroux argues that the increasingly narrow focus of
universities will eventually undermine the development of students’ critical faculties at the
university, and will in the end prove to be a threat to a well-functioning democracy.
A consequence of the fact that neo-liberalism does not assume competition but rather
tries to create it, is that the results of policy should be measured. Based on these results, the
policy can be evaluated and, if necessary, adapted in order to generate better results. This
element of neo-liberalism in the educational domain is emphasized by Apple (2001; 2005).
Apple considers this need for evidence as a distinctive feature of neo-liberalism:
one of the key differences between classical liberalism and its faith in ‘enterprising
individuals’ in a market and current forms of neo-liberalism is the latter’s commitment
to a regulatory state. Neo-liberalism does indeed demand the constant production of
evidence that one is in fact ‘making an enterprise of oneself’. (2001, p. 416)
The result of this endeavor to create evidence of the policy’s effectiveness is that an ‘audit
culture’ has emerged (Apple, 2005). Apple argues that this has resulted in a whole new class that
consists of professional auditors and controllers, whose professional success depends on this
audit culture. Hence, this class has an interest in promoting and spreading this culture, such that
the demand for their skills and services remains high: “Their own [social] mobility depends on
the expansion of both such expertise and the professional ideologies of control, measurement,
and efficiency that accompany it” (p. 20, emphasis in original).
The great effort that is put into the measurement of performance indicators provides a
reason why it is so hard to resist neo-liberalism. Since schools and teachers are judged along the
lines of the predefined performance indicators, they have to comply to them to some extent: “We
are burdened with the responsibility to perform, and if we do not we are in danger of being seen
as irresponsible” (Ball & Olmedo, 2013, p. 88). In the eyes of the judges, there is no value outside
12
of what is measured by the performance indicators (pp. 88-91). The result is that a teacher or a
principal can disagree with the performance indicators, but if he is concerned with how he
himself is judged, there is little room to do something else than what is prescribed. One thus has
to comply to the neo-liberal goals, if only as a sort of impression management. At this place, we
should remember that impression management comes at a cost. Goffman, in this respect, speaks
about “the dilemma of expression versus action” (1990 [1959], p. 43). In our case, where the
quality of education is measured by predefined performance criteria, this means the following. If
more time is spent on trying to meet the performance criteria, then less time is left to be spent
on things that are not measured by these criteria. Even though a teacher may find these criteria
too reductive and wishes to spend more time on other things, the necessity of impression
management makes that he has little time left to do this.
In this section, we have discussed the increasing ascendancy that neo-liberalism has in
the realm of education. This results in a narrower vision on what education should do. In the
next sections, we will operationalize the concept of neo-liberalism and discuss the method and
data of our research. These should allow us to investigate, inter alia, whether this narrower
vision could also be observed in the discourse surrounding bursaries in the Netherlands from
1953 to 2015.
3. Research question
In this thesis we are interested in the relationship between neo-liberalism and the discourse
surrounding bursaries in the Netherlands. In order to investigate this relationship, the concept
of neo-liberalism has to become operationalized. As we have seen, neo-liberalism is a complex
notion, i.e., it consists of different dimensions. In order to deal with this complexity, these
different dimensions have been distilled. By answering the following sub-questions, the
distinctive dimensions will be investigated:
1. Is education increasingly framed in terms of efficiency, economic growth, markets,
competition, human capital, etcetera, rather than in terms of ideals like the common
good or equal opportunity for all?
a. Does efficiency trump any other value?
2. Do the political actors assume economically rational agents, or is there rather an
endeavor to create such a world? In other words, do we observe that the political actors
think that the ‘entrepreneurial selves’ already exist (ontology) or that these
‘entrepreneurial selves’ have to be created (constructivist project)?
a. If it is a constructivist project, then how is this world of markets, competition and
rational actors created?
13
3. Is there an increasing emphasis on self-responsibility, where success and failure are seen
as the result of the merits of individual?
a. How is this exactly manifested?
b. Does it lead to increased insecurity for the individual? And is this insecurity
differentially distributed across society, i.e. does it lead to more insecurity for the
poor than for the rich?
4. Can a shift be observed towards one all-encompassing discourse, or do we keep finding
counter-discourses?
a. Who/which parties are involved in a neo-liberal discourse and who/which
parties in a counter-discourse?
b. Does the neo-liberal discourse appear as ‘neutral’ or ‘natural’, making any
counter-discourse appear as immoral, naïve and/or unrealistic? And if so, how is
this done?
5. Is the endeavor for maximal economic growth the sole goal of social policy?
a. How is this goal of maximal economic growth exactly manifested?
6. Is personal development valued as a goal in itself, or only to the extent that it results in a
higher income?
a. How are these goals exactly manifested?
7. Is there a greater emphasis on the importance of measuring and increasing the
effectiveness of different policies?
a. How is this effectiveness measured?
b. How has been tried to increase the effectiveness?
8. Can it be observed that capital is restructuring the economy, e.g. by influencing the scope
of possible options that students can choose from?
a. Does the distribution of money make it more likely that students choose certain
studies rather than others? Or does it make it more likely that they choose not to
study, due to the expectation of getting a high level of debt?
4. Method and data
4.1 Method
The study design contains a deductive, an abductive and an inductive element. The deductive
element is given by the fact that this thesis starts off from the notion of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism functions as a ‘sensitizing concept’, i.e. a concept that highlights certain aspects of
reality by “[giving] the user a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching empirical
instances” (Blumer, 1954, p.7). As such, the notion of neo-liberalism influences which parts of
14
the data are emphasized. This is also clear from the questions that were formulated above: by
trying to answer these, the analysis is from the beginning steered in a certain direction.
Given the important role that the concept of neo-liberalism plays in the conducted
analysis, this research is an example of ‘interpretive historical sociology’ (Skocpol, 1984; cf.
Taylor, 1971). In this approach, concepts are used to give an interpretation of historical events.
Weber argued for a similar approach: “The function of concepts [is not] the reproduction of
‘objective’ reality in the analyst’s imagination”, but concepts are rather “means to the end of
understanding phenomena which are significant from concrete individual viewpoints” (1949, p.
106, emphasis in original). This provides the deductive part of the methodology: the
interpretation that is given is theory-driven, because the concept of neo-liberalism provides the
lens through which the data is approached.
This also allows us to draw inferences about the usefulness of neo-liberalism as a
concept. This is the abductive part of this thesis. Since the concept of neo-liberalism is
operationalized by means of the eight sub-questions that were formulated in the above section,
we might be able to refine the concept. If we find discursive shifts in some dimensions but not in
others; if we assume that neo-liberalism did not already start in the 1950s; and finally, if we
conceive of the neo-liberal discourse as something that should be distinguished from earlier
discourses, then it makes sense to include only those dimensions in which discursive shifts are
observed as elements of neo-liberalism. So, for example, if we would observe that the endeavor
for maximal economic growth is an ideal that is found in every period, then it could no longer be
seen as a distinctive property of neo-liberalism. Hence, by analyzing the separate dimensions of
neo-liberalism, we are able to provide some suggestions for how the concept might be improved
(cf. Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).
The inductive part of this research follows from the fact that it is not a priori clear how
some of the distinctive dimensions of neo-liberalism will manifest themselves. In these cases, the
theory does not provide clear directions for what is to be expected. For example, sub-question
three is about the increased self-responsibility of the individual. The question is whether this is
the case, but also how it is manifested. This is not clear in advance from the theory. Therefore, it
is the data that has to reveal how an increased self-responsibility actually gets shaped. This is
the inductive part: it is driven by the data, rather than by the theory.
A final remark about the method concerns the performativity of the texts that will be
analyzed. At this point, it is helpful to remember Austin’s adage that “to say something is to do
something” (1975, p. 12). Hence, the documents that were analyzed were treated as sites of
production, rather than as sites of representation, i.e. they will not be considered as describing a
reality that exists outside of these documents, but as playing a constitutive role in creating this
reality. This perspective aligns well with the constructivism that characterizes neo-liberalism.
15
Neo-liberalism does not assume but rather tries to create market-like structures, and discourse
provides one way through which this can be done.
Bourdieu, contrary to Austin, argues that the performative effect of language is not a
property of language in general, but is only found in a specific kind of language. Bourdieu
criticizes Austin for not seeing the actual cause of the performative effect that language can
have:
Believing that he [Austin, MK] was contributing to the philosophy of language, he was in
fact working out a theory of a particular class of symbolic expressions, of which the
discourse of authority is only the paradigmatic form, and whose specific efficacy stems
from the fact that they seem to possess in themselves the source of a power which in
reality resides in the institutional conditions of their production and reception.
(Bourdieu, 1991, p. 111, emphasis in original)
Hence, one should not investigate just any discourse, but the discourse that is produced in the
right institutional conditions, such that it can have performative effects. The words uttered in
parliament have this specific efficacy; they represent and frame the objects that they talk about
in a certain way, and thereby delimit the space of possible ways to deal with them politically.
Indeed, the political discourse could be seen as what Miller and Rose call an ‘intellectual
technology’, i.e. it “provides a mechanism for rendering reality amenable to certain kinds of
action” (2008a, p. 31). Therefore, we chose to analyze parliamentary documents. We will now
turn to a discussion of this data.
4.2 Data
Within the period from 1953 to 2015, a lot has been said about bursaries in the House of
Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Netherlands. The search term ‘studiefinanciering’
(bursaries) resulted in 3506 documents in the period from 1953 to 1995. This is too high a
number for an in-depth analysis. Therefore, it was necessary to limit this research to five
moments in the period from 1953 to 2015. These five moments were selected, based on the
reading of historical studies on the history of bursaries in the Netherlands (Marchand, 2014;
Slaman, 2014; Slaman, Marchand & Schalk, 2015):
1. In 1953 there was a discussion about the demand for increased financial support for
students, after VVD parliamentarian Fortanier-De Wit requested this in two motions.
This discussion resulted in a system of tax reductions and extra child benefits for parents
of students (Slaman, 2014, p. 164-166). At that time, the government was formed by four
16
political parties: PvdA, KVP, ARP and CHU.3
The PvdA is a social-democratic party, while
the KVP, ARP and CHU were Christian democratic parties that merged together in 1980
and formed the CDA. KVP politician Cals was the minister of education, arts and sciences.
2. In the period 1973-1974, there were proposals for reforms to decrease the dependency
of students on their parents. These proposals were made in the aftermath of the so-called 1000 guilder-law (Slaman, 2015, p. 191). This law arranged an increase of college
fees from 200 guilders to 1000 guilders and met a lot of resistance among students. The
government was formed by five parties, namely PvdA, PPR, D66, KVP and ARP. The PPR
was a progressive and, initially, Christian party, which merged into GroenLinks in 1990.
D66 is a social-liberal party. Minister of education and sciences Van Kemenade and his
secretary Klein were both affiliated to the PvdA.
3. In 1986, the Law on bursaries (Wet op de studiefinanciering) came into being. In 1986,
the government consisted of CDA and VVD. CDA is a confessional party and VVD a liberal
party. The minister of education and sciences Deetman belonged to CDA.
4. In 2000, the law on bursaries of 1986 was replaced by the Law bursaries 2000 (Wet
studiefinanciering 2000). At that time, the government consisted of PvdA, VVD and D66.
VVD politician Hermans was the minister of education, culture and sciences in this
administration.
5. In 2015 there was the currently final amendment, namely the introduction of the Law
study loans higher education (Wet studievoorschot hoger onderwijs). The government
was, and still is, formed by VVD and PvdA. Minister of education, culture and science
Bussemaker is a politician of the PvdA. The reform was realized with the political
support of D66 and GroenLinks.
The data consists of documents from the House of Representatives of the Netherlands
(Kamerstukken and Kamerhandelingen). These are accessible via
http://www.statengeneraaldigitaal.nl for the period until 1995 and via
https://www.overheid.nl for the period from 1995 onwards.
The parliamentary documents are ordered in files. Using search terms such as
‘bursaries’, ‘study loan’, ‘government scholarship’ and ‘child benefits studying child’ on these
websites, it was possible to identify the relevant dossier numbers. Of the documents that were
found via this procedure, a purposive sample was drawn (Bryman, 2012, pp. 418-424; Marshall,
1996, p. 523). The goal of the sampling procedure was to have access to the broadest possible
scope of visions that were held at the different moments. Therefore, explanatory memoranda
(memories van toelichting) and parliamentary records (Kamerhandelingen) were selected. The
3
Information about the composition of the governments and about the political parties is taken from Parlement &
Politiek (2016).
17
explanatory memoranda were chosen because they contain the motivations of the government
for the proposed reforms. The parliamentary records, which contain everything that has been
said in the parliament, were chosen because they allow us to get insight in the opinions of the
different political parties. Together, these documents represent the diverse visions on the
subject matter. This sampling procedure was used for the analysis of the Law on bursaries, the
Law bursaries 2000 and the Law study loans higher education.
For the analysis of the first two periods, this strategy was not possible, since there was
not a single law that regulated the policy on bursaries in the Netherlands until the introduction
of the law of 1986. Hence, for the analysis of 1953, we chose to analyze the motions of Ms.
Fortanier-De Wit, the explanatory memorandum concerning the Law on the coordination of
social insurance, and a note of the former minister of education, arts and sciences Cals on the
facilities for students. The motions of VVD parliamentarian Fortanier-De Wit were selected
because they constitute the starting point of the discussion in 1953 about increased financial
support for students. The note of minister Cals was selected, because it provides insights in the
vision of the former government on this issue. Moreover, again to get insight in the scope of
possible visions on the subject matter, the parliamentary records containing the discussions in
the parliament around these issues were also analyzed. For the second period, the note on
bursaries of the former Secretary of education and science Klein and the letter on bursaries and
school fees coming from the former minister of education and science Van Kemenade, the
former minister of agriculture and fishery Brouwer and the former Secretary of education and
science Klein were selected to get insights in the vision of the former government. The
parliamentary records around this letter, were again chosen in order to see what the different
political parties thought about the issue.
After the collection of the data, the documents were uploaded in Atlas.ti and
subsequently coded. These codes were used to answer the sub-questions that were formulated
above. We will now turn to a discussion of the findings.
5. Findings
In this section, the results will be discussed. The results are organized around the themes that
emerged from the sub-questions that were presented in section 3.
5.1 The framing of education
Former Minister of education, arts and sciences Cals directed attention to both the economic and
the immaterial interests that are served by higher education funding. In his letter to the
parliament from 1953, he wrote the following:
18
In the meanwhile, it is not merely from the viewpoint of social justice, that the
Government is obligated to meet the financial needs of students; she also has to do this
on the grounds of the well-understood self-interest of society. One could namely safely
say, that the spiritual and material level of welfare of a people is very much determined
by the extent to which science takes part in society. (Kamerstuk 3002-1, p. 2)4,5
The focus on both the material and the immaterial benefits that stem from education, was found
also among most parliamentarians (see e.g. Handelingen 19-05-1953, p. 2582; p. 2601). PvdA
parliamentarian Van Sleen can serve as an example.6
On the one hand, he equated education
with other investments in economic resources:
That only a small part of the gifted gets the opportunity to develop his gifts fully, is a
form of waste and over-cropping with respect to human qualities, that one would reject
as retarded and primitive in the case of exploiting farmland or minerals. (Handelingen
19-05-1953, p. 2596)7,8
The idea of human capital is thus already present in 1953. On the other hand, he also pointed out
that guaranteeing access to higher education was something that was morally obliged:
We base this equal chance for all to study in the first place on moral grounds. According
to us, only the gifts of intellect and character should be on the basis of the selection for
higher education, and the same holds for secondary education. (Handelingen 19-05-1953, p. 2595)9
The broader conception on why education should be valued, could also be observed in
1974. The note on bursaries stated the following:
4
A reference of the form ‘Kamerstuk xxxx-y’ denotes Kamerstuk y that belongs to file number xxxx.
5
In this and following footnotes, the original Dutch text will be presented: “Het is intussen niet alleen uit het oogpunt
van sociale rechtvaardigheid, dat de Overheid verplicht is in de financiële noden van studenten tegemoet te komen; zij
moet dit ook doen op grond van het welbegrepen eigenbelang van de samenleving. Men kan nl. veilig stellen, dat het
geestelijk en materieel welvaartspeil van een volk voor een groot deel wordt bepaald door het niveau waarop en de mate
waarin de wetenschap haar aandeel in de samenleving heeft”
6
Information about the political affiliation of this and subsequent speakers who are cited, is taken from Parlement &
Politiek (2016).
7
A reference of the form ‘Handelingen xx-xx-xxxx’ denotes the parliamentary record of that date.
8
“Dat slechts een klein deel der begaafden de gelegenheid krijgt zijn gaven ten volle te ontplooien, is een vorm van
verkwisting en roofbouw ten aanzien van menselijke kwaliteiten, die men bij het ontginnen van landbouwgrond of
delfstoffen als achterlijk en primitief van de hand zou wijzen”
9
“Deze gelijke kans voor allen om te studeren baseren wij in de eerste plaats op zedelijke motieven. Slechts de gaven van
intellect en karakter mogen o.i. aan de selectie van het hoger onderwijs, en hetzelfde geldt voor de takken van voortgezet
onderwijs, ten grondslag liggen”
19
In answering the question if and to what extent society or the students should contribute
to the costs of the higher education apparatus, a number of aspect plays a role. It is about
the social, cultural and economic meaning of this education for the student and for
society, about safeguarding the equal chances for development for all groups within
society, about the deliberated use of scarce means of production for the realization of a
multiplicity of collective and individual needs, about the striving for a satisfactory
distribution of income in the short and the long term, about the position of the student in
education, in society and in the family. (Kamerstuk 12778-2, p. 15)10
The economic interest that is served by education was mentioned only as one among many
other concerns, like the social and cultural meaning of education, guaranteeing equal
opportunity for all, and the realization of a fair distribution of wealth.
In 1986, the importance of the economic interests that are served by education, becomes
clear from the references that were made to the relation between education and the labor
market (see e.g. Handelingen 21-01-1986, p. 2583; Handelingen 22-01-1986, p. 2655). After
remarking that students who are enrolled in a program of an educational institution abroad are
not entitled to receiving bursaries from the government, the explanatory memorandum stated
the following: “It will be considered in the future whether bursaries can possibly be provided for
the purpose of studies that are not or insufficiently represented in the Netherlands.
Considerations with respect to the labor market should hereby play a role” (Kamerstuk 19125-3,
p. 9).11
However, other ideals were also considered to be important. One of them is
emancipation. This ideal occupied a prominent place in the discussion (see e.g. Handelingen 21-01-1986, p. 2582; p. 2590). D66 parliamentarian Groenman, after talking about women’s access
to higher education, pointed out:
Once and again, my fraction has argued in favor of creating no new partner
dependencies. About these, enough problems already exist in the domain of welfare.
Moreover, the aim of the minister does not tally with the emancipation policy of the
government. That is namely aimed at making partners financially independent from each
10
“Bij de beantwoording van de vraag of en in hoeverre de gemeenschap dan wel de studenten de kosten van het tertiair-onderwijsapparaat behoren te dragen, speelt een aantal aspecten een rol. Het gaat hierbij om de sociale, culturele en
economische betekenis van dit onderwijs voor student en gemeenschap, om het veilig stellen van gelijke kansen op
ontplooiing voor alle groepen binnen de samenleving, om het afgewogen gebruik van schaarse produktiemiddelen voor
de voorziening in een veelheid collectieve en individuele behoeften, om het nastreven van een bevredigende
inkomstenverdeling op korte en langere termijn, om de positie van de student in het onderwijs, de samenleving en het
gezin”
11
“In de toekomst zal evenwel worden bezien of er mogelijk studiefinanciering kan worden verstrekt ten behoeve van
opleidingen in het buitenland die in Nederland niet of nog onvoldoende zijn vertegenwoordigd.
Arbeidsmarktoverwegingen dienen hierbij mede een rol te spelen”
20
other. Partner dependence should not exist in the awarding of bursaries. (Handelingen
21-01-1986, p. 2619)12
Although emancipation had to be achieved by means of financial independence, education and
bursaries were not merely framed in terms like efficiency, competition and human capital.
Emancipation was valued because it reduces social inequality between men and women. The
theme of emancipation shows thus that ideals, which are not easily reduced to an issue
belonging to the realm of economics, mattered as well.
Concerns with respect to the labor market were also in 2000 an important aspect of the
discussion surrounding the proposed reform (see e.g. Handelingen 21-03-2000, p. 4086;
Handelingen 23-03-2000, p. 4217). Minister Hermans said the following: “Bursaries are in
principle meant for doing one study in higher education. The starting point is that with this, a
student acquires a good qualification for the labor market” (Handelingen 22-03-2000, p. 4134).13
But again, the labor market was not the only important topic of the discussion. GroenLinks
parliamentarian Rabbae directed attention to the emancipatory potential of education:
I have asked the minister whether he is prepared to make piling up still possible for
students who can use piling up as an important means for their emancipation. In the
past, piling up has given a lot of children from underprivileged environments the
possibility to end up higher. I think that everyone finds it important that all children get
equal chances. (Handelingen 23-03-2000, p. 4212)14
Hence, once again, education was framed in both economic and non-economic terms.
In the discussion around the reform of 2015, knowledge was seen as a very important
resource for the economy of the Netherlands (see e.g. Kamerstuk 34035-3, p. 27; Handelingen
05-06-2014, p. 8). It was seen as an instrument to deal with the challenges that were posed by
demographic and societal changes. As the explanatory memorandum stated:
12
“Een- en andermaal heeft mijn fractie gepleit voor het niet toevoegen van nieuwe partnerafhankelijkheden. Met de
bijstand bestaan daarover al problemen genoeg. Bovendien strookt het door de minister beoogde niet met het door de
regering gevoerde emancipatiebeleid. Dat is er namelijk juist op gericht, partners op den duur financieel onafhankelijk
van elkaar te maken. Partnerafhankelijkheid moet niet bestaan bij het toekennen van studiefinanciering”
13
“Studiefinanciering is in principe bedoeld voor het volgen van één opleiding in het hoger onderwijs. Het uitgangspunt is
dat een student hiermee een goede kwalificatie voor de arbeidsmarkt verwerft”
14
“Ik heb de minister gevraagd of hij bereid is het stapelen alsnog beperkt mogelijk te maken voor studenten die het
stapelen als een belangrijke middel kunnen gebruiken bij hun emancipatie. In het verleden heeft het stapelen veel
kinderen uit kansarme milieus de mogelijkheid geboden om hogerop te komen. Ik denk dat iedereen het belangrijk vindt
dat alle kinderen gelijke kansen krijgen”
21
Since the working population ages, we shall have to realize growth in the future partially
by an increase of productivity. Also the Scientific Council for Government Policy points to
the fact that labor processes renew themselves quicker … In an ever faster changing
world is the skill to respond quickly and adequately to new circumstances of great
importance. A constant circulation of knowledge is necessary. The key to this is a
stronger effort to stimulate schooling during the entire life. (Kamerstuk 34035-3, p. 27)15
This quote testifies of the fact that the dissemination of knowledge has become to be perceived
as an essential mechanism through which economic growth should be realized (cf. Olssen &
Peters, 2005). Besides economic development, equal opportunity for all was also still perceived
as an important ideal that could be accomplished by means of education (see e.g. Handelingen
05-11-2014, p. 1; p. 9). This is also found in the explanatory memorandum:
Children from the lower income groups currently end up relatively often at the
preparatory vocational education and the intermediate vocational education. There is no
problem if these children choose deliberately for this, but often the cause is partly the
environment in which they grow up and in which studying is not encouraged. While the
starting point of the government is that all children should have an equal chance to
follow the education that fits them, and an equal chance to develop their talents. With
this bill, the government therefore provides extra attention to the inflow in the entire
system of education. Thresholds like high costs for pre-masters (university) or the lack
of them (intermediate vocational education) will be tackled. (Kamerstuk 34035-3, pp. 3-4)16
To summarize the above, we could say that in all periods, education was framed in terms
of both the economic interests that it serves, and in terms of the less material ideals that could
be accomplished by it. Hence, a shift towards a more reductive notion of what education means
was not observed. The economic interest that is served by education, always occupied an
15
“Omdat de beroepsbevolking vergrijst, zullen we economische groei in de toekomst voor een deel moeten realiseren
door een verhoging van de productiviteit. Ook wijst de WRR [Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid, MK] erop dat
arbeidsprocessen zich steeds sneller vernieuwen … In een steeds sneller veranderende wereld is de vaardigheid om snel en
adequaat in te spelen op nieuwe omstandigheden van groot belang. Er is een voortdurende kenniscirculatie nodig. Een
sterkere inzet op scholing gedurende het hele leven is hierbij de sleutel”
16
“Kinderen uit de lagere inkomensgroepen komen nu nog relatief vaak terecht op het vmbo en het mbo. Als deze
kinderen hier bewust voor kiezen is dat geen enkel probleem, maar vaak ligt de oorzaak mede in de omgeving waarin zij
opgroeien, waarin studeren niet wordt aangemoedigd. Terwijl het uitgangspunt van de regering juist is dat alle kinderen
een gelijke kans horen te hebben om het onderwijs te volgen dat bij hen past, en een gelijke kans om hun talenten waar te
maken. Met dit wetsvoorstel zorgt de regering daarom voor extra aandacht voor in- en doorstroming in het gehele
onderwijsstelsel. Drempels zoals hoge kosten voor schakelprogramma’s (wo) of het ontbreken daarvan (mbo) worden
aangepakt”
22
important place in the discussions around bursaries. It did, however, never became the sole
focus of attention. Other, less material ideals, were in all periods considered to be important as
well. Hence, there is no shift observed towards a narrower framing of education.
5.2 An ontology or a constructivist project?
In 1953, the problem was not how the behavior and aspirations of (prospective) students could
be influenced by a different policy. It was rather about making sure that those who had the
capacities–both of intellect and of character–to be successful in a study in higher education, got
the chance to visit the university (see e.g. Handelingen 19-05-1953, p. 2586; p. 2589). After
pointing out that society needs to make the most of the academic potential that the Netherlands
contained, the appendix of the note on bursaries stated: “This also means that those, who on the
grounds of their suitability for following higher education are at their place at the university,
should not be kept back from education at the university by financial constraints” (Kamerstuk
3002-1, p. 6).17
The politicians of the 1950s did neither make behavioral assumptions about how
youngsters make a decision about whether or not to study (e.g. via a cost-benefit analysis), nor
did they show the endeavor to promote a certain type of procedure for making decisions. Hence,
entrepreneurial selves were neither assumed, nor desired. Rather, the political problem
concerned the elimination of the obstructions that talented students may have faced for
following higher education. The goal was to make sure that those students who had the ability to
make a success of their studies, would get access to the university.
From 1973 onwards, the principle of profit (profijtbeginsel) became an important
guideline for governmental action (see e.g. Handelingen 25-06-1973, p. 2009; p. 2040). The
principle of profit states that he who reaps the benefits of studying, should also pay the bills for
it (Slaman, 2014, p. 191). This principle was at work in the proposal that is found in the note on
bursaries of 1974: “Not the students, but the graduates should pay a contribution to education
insofar as they have a higher income at their disposal” (Kamerstuk 12778-2, p. 16).18
At this
place, the principle of profit was invoked as a principle of distributive justice; the principle of
profit was seen as an instrument to create a fair distribution of goods.
Although this aspect of justice was still present in 1986, it was now accompanied by the
idea that the principle of profit would lead to students who weigh the benefits of studying
against the accompanying costs. Hence, it was also seen as a description of behavior. As
parliamentarian Dees of the VVD said: “the principle of profit will still make that a student
himself will weigh the costs and benefits of going to university, and thus also the quality of
17
“Dit brengt mede, dat degenen, die op grond van hun geschiktheid voor het volgen van hoger onderwijs aan de
universiteit op hun plaats zijn, niet om financiële redenen van een universitaire studie mogen worden weerhouden”
18
“Niet de studenten, maar de afgestudeerden moeten een onderwijsbijdrage betalen naarmate zij over een hoger
inkomen beschikken”
23
education” (Handelingen 21-01-1986, p. 2627).19
The principle of profit was seen as something
that, more or less naturally, created ‘entrepreneurial selves’ who took both the costs of studying
and the expected higher future incomes into account in the decision about whether to study or
not (cf. Foucault, 2008, p. 229). However, there is a problem with this line of reasoning, and this
is given by the uncertainty about the costs and benefits of studying. PSP parliamentarian
Willems pointed out this problem: “The individual profit for the consumer of education cannot
be measured” (Handelingen 21-01-1986, p. 2586).20
So two contradictory visions could be found
in 1986. On the one hand, the student was seen as someone who calculates the costs and
benefits of studying, and uses this to decide about whether or not to go to the university. On the
other hand, we see that this vision was dismissed as an impossibility, because the individual’s
costs and benefits of studying were unknown, and even unknowable.
The conflict between these two ideas can explain the proposed policy of 2015. The
explanatory memorandum of this reform referred to a new paradigm, in which the student was
conceptualized as an investor (Kamerstuk 34035-3, p. 7; see also e.g. Handelingen 05-06-2014,
p. 8; p. 22). With this perspective in mind, it made sense to demand a higher contribution of the
student if the benefits of studying were higher. Therefore, after pointing out the high demand for
professionals with a training in higher education which results in a high paycheck for this group,
the explanatory memorandum stated: “Taking these high personal yields into account, it is only
logical to ask a higher contribution from students themselves for the costs they make during
their studies” (Kamerstuk 34035-3, p. 8).21
However, the higher future incomes of graduates of
higher education was only an expectation; it was not guaranteed. Hence, there was some
uncertainty in this respect. In order to reduce this uncertainty, the proposed policy was such
that students only had to repay their debt if their future jobs provided them with a sufficiently
high level of income. Moreover, informing prospective students about the study loans played an
important role in the explanatory memorandum. Informing also helped to reduce the
uncertainty that students faced:
Providing adequate information about the imminent changes is thus very important to
enable (prospective) students as much as possible to make their choices deliberately, on
the basis of correct, complete and current information. Financial information and study
and career guidance are an important part of this. (Kamerstuk 34035-3, p. 42)22
19
“het profijtbeginsel zal er toch toe leiden dat een studerende zelf kosten en baten van het volgen van een opleiding, en
dus ook de kwaliteit van de opleiding, zal afwegen”
20
“Het individuele profijt voor de onderwijsconsument is niet te meten”
21
“Gezien deze hoge persoonlijke opbrengsten, is het niet meer dan logisch om van studenten ook een hogere eigen
bijdrage te vragen voor de kosten die zij maken tijdens hun studie”
22
“Adequate voorlichting over de op handen zijnde veranderingen is dus van groot belang om (aankomende) studenten
zoveel mogelijk in staat te stellen hun keuzes bewust te maken, op basis van juiste, volledige en actuele informatie.
Financiële voorlichting en studie- en loopbaanbegeleiding maken daar met nadruk onderdeel van uit”
24
Following Callon’s (1998) terminology, one could say that public information functioned as a
‘calculating tool’, i.e. a device which makes it possible for agents to behave calculative. In other
words, public information allowed prospective students to get insight in the costs and benefits of
studying. As a result, they could behave as entrepreneurs who choose between alternatives by
taking the net benefits of these alternatives into account. The goal of providing public
information was to stimulate prospective students to make decisions in a calculative fashion: “In
this way, the government wants to incite students to think about the way in which they will
organize their studies in the coming years (financially), and which decisions they will have to
make for that” (Kamerstuk, 34035-3, pp. 42-43).23
Prospective students were forced to act as
entrepreneurial selves, because of the more severe budget constraints that they faced due to the
policy reform.
Now, did we observe that the political actors assumed that rational acting agents already
existed, or rather that these calculating actors had to be created? The answer seems to be that
rational actors were both assumed and created. On the one hand, we saw the paradigm shift
towards the student as an entrepreneur for whom education is seen as an investment in himself.
On the other hand, we also saw–only in 2015–an endeavor to create rationally acting agents by
the means of providing public information, such that prospective students have enough
knowledge about costs and benefits to be able to make an economically rational decision.
However, providing information about costs and benefits is, in itself, not sufficient to create
rationally choosing actors. It is only sufficient if it is already assumed that prospective students
make decisions based on cost-benefit analyses. And, inversely, this assumption is only justified if
students have access to sufficient information in order to be able to know the costs and benefits.
In conclusion, then, we could say that the discourse exhibited aspects of neither solely an
ontology nor solely of a constructivist endeavor. Rather, the ontology and the constructivism
rely on each other, such that the whole can be described as a circular project: the ontology can
only exist due to the constructivist endeavor, and the constructivist undertaking can only
succeed because of the assumptions about how prospective students make decisions.
5.3 Individuality, self-responsibility and insecurity
In 1953, the development of the self-reliance [zelfstandigheid] of students was seen as an
important goal of education (Handelingen 19-05-1953). However, this did not lead to the
demolition of collective arrangements. Rather, it meant that policy should be such that the
process towards becoming self-reliant individuals was not blocked by that policy. That is the
23
“Zo wil de regering studenten ertoe aanzetten om na te denken over de wijze waarop zij hun studie de komende jaren
(financieel) gaan organiseren, en welke beslissingen zij daarvoor moeten nemen”
25
reason why indirect support, for example in the form of eateries for students, should not be
organized completely by the government. As KVP parliamentarian Stokman said: “To begin with,
I think that it is desirable that students themselves will remain responsible for the eateries,
precisely because indirect support can easily undermine the sense of responsibility”
(Handelingen 19-05-1953, p. 2590).24
The ideals of self-reliance and responsibility did not,
however, lead to the idea that everyone is always individually responsible for his or her own
fate. This becomes clear from the fact that attention was paid to problems that youngsters may
face with respect to adjusting to their new lives as students:
As a result of various social-psychological and sociological factors, many students face
adjustment problems, especially in the beginning of their studies. Besides being
connected to educational factors, these can cohere with character, with talent, with the
environment [and] the social relationships. (Kamerstuk 3002-1, p. 9)25
There was thus no blind spot for the social factors that could influence the performance of an
individual student.
Financial independence from parents is the form of self-reliance that was central in the
discussions in the periods 1973-1974 and 1986 (see e.g. Handelingen 25-06-1973; Handelingen
21-01-1986). Although the realization of this ideal was ultimately not fully realized because of
budgetary restrictions, it nevertheless became clear that financial independence was seen as
something that was desirable. It increased the possibilities of students, because they no longer
had to turn to their parents to get access to financial means for their studies. Providing
alternative options for students is a goal that was found in the 1974 note on bursaries:
Every student who wants so, should have the possibility to acquire the necessary means
for studying himself, without being led into great difficulties. This means in no way that
parental contribution to study costs will not be taken into account. On the contrary, for a
lot of students and parents, this is a satisfactory solution. What changes, is that there will
be an alternative for students (and parents) who wish to abandon parental
contributions. (Kamerstuk 12778-2, p. 13)26
24
“Vooreerst lijkt het mij wenselijk, dat de studenten zelf verantwoordelijkheid blijven dragen voor de eetgelegenheden,
juist omdat indirecte steun het verantwoordelijkheidsgevoel gemakkelijk ondermijnt”
25
“Tengevolge van diverse sociaal-psychologische en sociologische factoren doen zich bij vele studenten, vooral in de
aanvang van hun studie, aanpassingsmoeilijkheden voor. Deze kunnen behalve met onderwijskundige factoren ook
samenhangen met het karakter, de aanleg, het milieu [en] de sociale contacten”
26
“Iedere student die dat wil, moet de mogelijkheid hebben om de voor de studie benodigde middelen zelfstandig te
verwerven zonder daardoor in grote moeilijkheden te worden gebracht. Dit betekent geenszins dat niet meer met
ouderlijke bijdragen in de studiekosten wordt rekening gehouden. In tegendeel, voor veel studenten en hun ouders is dit
