(Neo)Liberal doses of inequality : advance Australia where?

The relationship between social background and achievement has preoccupied educational researchers since the mid-20th century with major studies in the area reaching prominence in the late 60s. Despite five decades of research and innovation since, recent studies using OECD data have shown that the relationship is strengthening rather than weakening. In this paper, the systematic destabilisation of public education in Australia is examined as a philosophical problem stemming from a fundamental shift in political orientation, where “choice” and “aspiration” work to promote and disguise survivalism. The problem for education however extends far deeper than the inequity in Federal government funding. Whilst this is a major problem, critical scrutiny must also focus on what states can do to turn back aspects of their own education policy that work to exacerbate and entrench social disadvantage.

Democracy and the Project of Liberal Inclusion

Democracy is a multi-dimensional concept, ranging from definitions based exclusively on institutional frameworks (for example, Held, 2005, Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub and Limongi, 2000) to complex and integrated measures that include political and civil rights, democratic practices, values and, finally, a diverse set of institutional arrangements in society, including welfare, education, industrial relations and the legal system (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005, Jaggers and Gurr, 1995, O'Donnell, Cullel and Iazetta, 2004). This reflects the range of and distinction between merely formal electoral democracy and genuinely 'effective liberal democracy' (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005: 149), where democracy is firmly embedded not only in its institutions but in the values of its citizenry. Evidence from cross-national research confirms that formal democratic institutions, different dimensions of effective democracy, and democratic values are indeed strongly linked (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005: 154, Jaggers and Gurr, 1995: 446). Democracy is more than just a set of institutions, rules and mechanisms: it is a set of core values engrained in the 'lived experience' of its citizens. Core values of democracies are individual autonomy and egalitarianism, tolerance of diversity, and freedom from oppression for both individuals and institutions. Democracies restrain their governments by the rule of law and grant its citizens equal access to and equal treatment by legal institutions. Among these institutions, criminal justice and the treatment of those who violated rules and regulations represent sensitive seismographs for the quality of effective democracies, and the ways how democracies realise their core values.

Regulation beyond government: Weber, Foucault and the liberal governance of media content

This paper steps back from the question of how regulation of digital media content occurs, and whether it can be effective, to consider the rationales that inform regulation, and the ethics and practices associated with content regulation. It will be argued that Max Weber's account of bureaucratic expertise remains relevant to such discussions, particularly insofar as it intersects with Michel Foucault's concept of governmentality, and contemporary applications of the notion of 'governing at a distance'. The nature of the challenges to media regulators presented by online environments, and by digital and social media, are considered in depth, but it is argued that the significance of regulatory innovations that respond to such challenges should not be underestimated, nor should the continuing national foundations of media regulation. It will also discuss the relevance of the concept of 'soft law' to contemporary regulatory practice.