Comments on: Academy chains and the new Stalinism http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/academy-chains-and-the-new-stalinism/ Politics, brains, social action and the day to day life of the RSA’s chief executive Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:15:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: links for 2009-01-22 | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/academy-chains-and-the-new-stalinism/comment-page-1/#comment-730 links for 2009-01-22 | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:02:55 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=1033#comment-730 [...] Academies and the new stalinism Matthew Taylor discovers a fundamental problem with academies. [...] [...] Academies and the new stalinism Matthew Taylor discovers a fundamental problem with academies. [...]

]]> By: matthewtaylor http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/academy-chains-and-the-new-stalinism/comment-page-1/#comment-673 matthewtaylor Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:56:49 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=1033#comment-673 This is absolutley right Indy and one of the many complicated things about CT. As I said in my last post, hierarchies themselves when they have problems will soon give rise internally to the competing CT rationalities. One of the reasons arguments within hierarchies are fascinating. This is absolutley right Indy and one of the many complicated things about CT. As I said in my last post, hierarchies themselves when they have problems will soon give rise internally to the competing CT rationalities. One of the reasons arguments within hierarchies are fascinating.

]]> By: Indy http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/academy-chains-and-the-new-stalinism/comment-page-1/#comment-657 Indy Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:06:45 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=1033#comment-657 If I can borrow and mangle some of your Cultural Theory post, I'd posit that what we see in the Academies example (and in quite a few initiative from the same era) is a kind of category error. Markets may be thought of as catering to individualists. However, the actors (private companies) inside markets are actually hierarchies and very strict ones at that. The mistake has been sometimes to assume that because an organisation comes out of the market (i.e. is a private company) it will serve an individualist agenda in an arena that is not a market. What has happened in this case is that absent the "discipline of the market" the hiearchical nature of the company comes out. If I can borrow and mangle some of your Cultural Theory post, I’d posit that what we see in the Academies example (and in quite a few initiative from the same era) is a kind of category error.

Markets may be thought of as catering to individualists. However, the actors (private companies) inside markets are actually hierarchies and very strict ones at that.

The mistake has been sometimes to assume that because an organisation comes out of the market (i.e. is a private company) it will serve an individualist agenda in an arena that is not a market. What has happened in this case is that absent the “discipline of the market” the hiearchical nature of the company comes out.

]]>