Newphilanthropy PDF

P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S : 2 0 0 8 VO L 5 6 , 7 4 7 – 7 6 5
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.
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, 1992, p. 17), have their own ‘internal relationships of trust and
deference’ (McPherson and Raab, 1988, p. 405) and bring members of the
‘power elite’ into a very specific relation to state education and education
policy. Increasingly, it would appear, it is in ‘these decentralized, and more or
less regularized and coordinated, interactions between state and societal actors
that policy making unfolds’ (Coleman and Skogstad, 1990, p. 4). This is, as
Figure 1a and b: Education Policy Network 1
LSDA
David
Patterson
West London Academy SHINE

Alec Reed
Hay
NCSL Group
The
MAN Falmer Academy
group
Jim
REED O’Neill
Learning
Harvey
John Aisbitt
McGrath
Gavyn Goldman-
Davies Sachs Linda Neal
Sir Paul
CEA
Judge
New
Peter
Philanthropy Wheeler
Capital
Jennifer Moses
EIM
Teachers
TV Arpad Busson
London First
Southwark
Institute of DfES
Academy
Education
Falkirk Schools
PFI and others ARK
Paul
Dunning Rona Kiley
Tanaka
Proposed Business
Academies in School
HSBC Lambeth + Academy
HSBC Westminster Sponsors
Educational Trust
Trust
Mary
Richardson
Pauline Harris
CfBT
Brunel 40
Academy Specialist
schools Harris CTC
Lord Harris Bacon’s CTC
Sandwell SIFE Peckham Academy
Academy 9
Proposed Lambeth
Sir Kevin Satchwell Academy
Charles Wright-Mills calls it, a new form of ‘institutional mechanics’ ( Wright-

Mills, 1959, p. 20). By ‘examining networks we are looking at the institution-
alization of power relations’ (Marsh and Smith, 2000, p. 6). Such influences and
relationships are of course not entirely new; it is their specificity, directness and
degree of integration with state organisations that is different. That is to say, the
many actors and organisations referred to below are now a part of what Chris
Skelcher (1998) calls ‘the appointed state’. They are represented on committees,
trusts, boards, authorities, agencies and councils which are connected to and do
Figure 1a and b: Continued
National Strategies contract DfES

Rod Aldridge
CAPITA
Board of Independent Regulator of foundation

trusts in the NHS
Proposed
Academy in Cabinet
Blackburn Office
with Darwen Treasury
David Bennett KPMG
NESTA NCSL
NACETT
Islington and
Penelope Hackney and
Dash Peckham
Academies
UFi McKinsey
Tony
Cann Michael Corporation
Barber of London
FEFC
Teach
First Kingston
Smith
Promethean
(Whiteboards)
Michael
Cisco
Snyder Network
Academy
Cyril Deborah
Taylor Knight
Haberdashers
Askes CTC
Bexley
Specialist Academy
Schools Trust
Belvedere
Peter School
Lampl Liverpool
(Academy
Sir David conversion)
Garrard
the work of the state. They are engaged in various mundane and informal
ways in the day-to-day business of the state through face-to-face meetings,
discussions, representations and consultations. They are there to bring particular
sorts of perspectives, methods and interests to bear on and in the policy
process.
People move across and within such communities, and there are new kinds of
policy and governance careers which can be constructed within them. They
work through forms of ‘contact’; however, the nature of the relations between
members (as represented by the arrows in the figures) is not the same
in every case. Participations are also multifaceted: individual actors may be
involved in networks in a variety of different ways, e.g. sponsorship, contracting,
Figure 2: Education Policy Network 2
Kingshurst Valerie
CTC Bragg UCLES
Sir
Stanley Peter
Goodchild Ogden
Specialist
DfES
Schools and
3Es Academies
HEFCE
U Ufi
Nick
Stuart
Elizabeth Sir
Passmore Gareth Dixon’s CTC/
Roberts Academy
Mike
Tomlinson
Cognita
Stanley
Kalms
GEMS David
Trigg
Liverpool, Chris
and Woodhead
Lewisham
Academies Proposed
Academies
in Milton Jim
Bexley Keynes
Academy Hudson
University of
Buckingham
Greensward
College
Grieg Academy –
Executive Principal
Thamesbridge
Academy
SMART Cisco
Whiteboards Network
Co.
Sir David academy John
Garrard Madejski
advice, committee membership, etc. Contacts vary in their significance. One of

the interpretive problems involved in thinking about how these networks work
is that of deciding, at least in the case of some participants, where business ends
and philanthropy or public service begins and to what extent philanthropy is a
means of influence or a form of ‘identity-work’ (Breeze, 2007). The forms of
exchange involved are often unclear. These communities establish productive
and potentially profitable relationships within the state for non-state actors and
they provide access to valuable insider knowledge (see Ball, 2007). But perhaps
it is pointless to attempt to pin down precisely the motives involved here or to
try to separate out different elements and better to accept that motives for
participation are contradictory and mixed. Nonetheless, as public sector busi-
ness becomes more attractive and more lucrative for the private sector (UK
public service outsourcing contracts are worth more than £2.5 billion annu-
ally), ‘giving’ or participation in policy events is a way of registering a presence
and making ‘purposeful’ relationships with contractors and opinion makers. For
example, as one of my respondents noted in the case of McKinsey, a multina-
tional consultancy company which crops up several times in the networks
illustrated, ‘they’ve actually got a growing business now at McKinsey in the
public sector. So ... It’s another example, in a way, of profitable business moving
towards the public sector ... they’re flowing towards where the money is’.3
Participation can also lead to the receipt of awards, honours and positions in
and around the state itself.4 Within the networks some people (or organisations)
who occupy multiple positions and who are adept in the arts of networking act
as nodes; they join things up. The boundaries of these networks are often
difficult to discern and in the cases presented they are pragmatic and reflect
more the limitations of data collection and of representation than any firm
cut-off points in the actors’ social relations.
The networks contain flows of influence as well as flows of people, and influence
is carried back and forth across the boundaries between the public and private
sectors; resources are exchanged, interests are served and rewards achieved.
Through social relationships trust is established and views and discourses are
legitimated. They structure and constrain, enable the circulation of ideas and give
‘institutional force’ to policy utterances, ensuring what can count as policy and
limiting the possibilities of policy. As David Richards and Martin Smith (2002,
p. 207) note, networks ‘simplify the policy process by limiting actions, problems
and solutions’. Indeed these networks are both carriers of discourse and contain
key sites of discourse, wherein new policy ideas are naturalised and made emi-
nently thinkable and obvious as the constituents of public sector reform narra-
tives. Specifically in this case the ‘enterprise narrative’ (see Students in Free
Enterprise [SIFE], National Foundation for Teaching Enterprise and The
Academy for Enterprise [see Alec Reed below]). This is a new hegemonic vision
which inserts competition and entrepreneurialism into the heart of the project of
state education. Such narratives in turn serve to repopulate the field of policy,
legitimating new actors; they rework the possibilities of public sector delivery and
establish new key ideas and new social logics. These new actors are in Bob
Jessop’s terms the bearers of a new accumulation strategy and he notes their
‘increasing participation ... in shaping education mission statements’ (Jessop, 2002,
p. 167).
New Policy Communities

In this section I shall trace some of the relationships and identify some of the
participants (individual and corporate) which make up new communities in
education policy but this will be of necessity a partial and indicative exercise. Ian
Farnsworth (2004, pp. 132–45) does similar work on ‘social policy networks’ (and
informal personal associations) at the local level looking at the constitution of
welfare service boards in Bristol. The involvements and connections traced here
are by no means exhaustive. The networks also have a degree of instability and
mutability; memberships change and the lead organisations are subject to restruc-
turing and change of status. Furthermore, some of the specific links shown may
be fairly tenuous in terms of personal interactions but do indicate the ‘joining up’
of businesses, non-state organisations and actors and the ‘core executive’ and a
general re-spatialisation of policy.
The foci or starting points for the mapping of the networks used here are fairly
arbitrary – the Academy Sponsors’ Trust (AST) in the case of Network 1, and
General Education Management Systems5 (GEMS, a Dubai-based health and
education services company) in the case of Network 2 – and as will become
apparent the two networks overlap and are interlinked. Each contains some
areas of intensive interrelationships and others where relationships are more
fragmented. As noted, the limits of representation prevent the inclusion of all
linkages, and what is meant here by linkages and relationships varies from
board, committee and task force memberships to sponsorships, and includes a
range of formal and informal positions and responsibilities. Lead organisations
by definition act as network nodes and some Academy schools, like Sandwell
and Bexley, through their sponsors, supporters and project managers, reoccur
and are also the focus of several linkages in the networks. Given the limits of
space I can only draw attention to and comment on some of the features of
each of the networks.
Some members of these policy communities have multiple roles (within agencies,
public service and philanthropy). They are at different times, or sometimes
simultaneously, representatives of business, advisers to the state, philanthropists,
moral entrepreneurs or doing public service and may be thought of as ‘transactors’
having both ‘shared’ and ‘additional goals’ ( Wedel, 2001, p. 130) – that is, public
and personal motives together. Tony Cann CBE (600th on the Sunday Times
Rich List in 1999) is an interesting example of multiplicity: founder and now
vice-chairman of Promethean Technologies Group (a whiteboard company
with turnover in 2003 in excess of £38 million [company website]), he is also
chairman of the University for Industry (Ufi) board, member of the National
Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets (NACETT), former
member of the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) and sits on several
FE college and university boards. Promethean is also a ‘partner’ of Teach First and
the Specialist Schools Trust.6 Mr Cann has also raised the possibility of sponsoring
an Academy in Blackburn where his company is based, and was a sponsor of the
Blackburn Education Action Zone. Another example is Sir Alec Reed, a new
kind of policy entrepreneur who is a proselytiser for enterprise and creativity –
an educationalist and businessman, writer, professor and philanthropist. He
demonstrates the complexity of the new form of governance apparent in the

overlapping and interlinking of roles of new policy actors and the complexity of
the actors themselves. The Reed Group of companies works with the private and
public sectors to provide specialist employment services, including to schools.
Alec Reed himself runs a charity (The Academy for Enterprise) which sponsors
over twenty Specialist schools and he also sponsors an Academy school (The
West London Academy). He is 606th in the 2004 Sunday Times Rich List with
family wealth of £67 million. An article in Creating Wealth (PWC customer
magazine, http://www.bestbusinesswriting.com/interview-Reed.html) describes
Alec Reed as ‘an innovator, a businessman and an educationalist with a power
vision’. He is Professor of Innovation at Royal Holloway and Bedford College
(and set up a course there, Leadership, Innovation and Enterprise Studies), and
was Visiting Professor of Enterprise at Guildhall University. He has worked with
four think tanks: The Adam Smith Institute, DEMOS, the Economic Policy
Research Institute and the Smith Institute. Such community members represent
and are part of a more general blurring of boundaries between the public and
private sectors.
In Network 1 what is particularly noticeable is the participation of representatives
of finance capital, in particular Goldman-Sachs, the Man Group, EIM and HSBC
(HSBC is a member of the PPP Forum and active in the private finance initiative
[PFI] market with equity interests in a number of schools projects). Paul Dunning
of HSBC is a Director and Trustee of the charity Absolute Return for Kids
(ARK), as is Stanley Fink of the Man Group and Jennifer Moses of Goldman-
Sachs. ARK founder Arpad Busson is senior partner of EIM fund management
company (with assets reported as ranging from £5–10 billion). He describes
education as ‘in crisis’ and ‘the biggest issue government face today’ and argues
that ‘Charities must treat donors as if they were shareholders’ (The Observer, 29
May 2005). Jon Aisbitt, once of Goldman-Sachs, now of the Man Group, is the
proposed sponsor of an Academy in Brighton (in 2003 he was 406th on the
Sunday Times Rich List with a personal fortune of £80 million and donated
£250,000 to the Labour party election campaign of 2001) with Harvey
McGrath, of Man Group (351st on the 2004 Sunday Times Rich List with a
personal fortune of £112 million) and Gavyn Davies (ex-chairman of the BBC)
of Goldman-Sachs; he is a Trustee of New Philanthropy Capital (NPC), which
advises companies on philanthropic investments, including advice on participa-
tion in the Academies Programme, and is on the board of Business in the
Community. Jim O’Neill of Goldman-Sachs is a sponsor of the charity Support
and Help In Education (SHINE, which focuses on disadvantaged children) and
sits on the Board of Teach First, as do Peter Lampl and Nick Lovegrove of
McKinsey.
There are several nodal actors in this network, people who join things up, who are
catalysts or synergisers: for example, Mary Richardson, Director of the HSBC
Education Trust, an ex-state school head and education Dame; Sir Cyril Taylor,
Chairman of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust; and Valerie Bragg, head
teacher of Kingshurst City Technology College (CTC), co-founder of business
services company 3Es (now owned by GEMS) and chief executive of the Bexley
Academy. There are also a number of lead organisations like the AST and
Specialist Schools Trust (SST). These trusts have several trustees from business
including Mary Richardson (HSBC);Valerie Bragg (3Es); Dame Pauline Harris,
wife of Lord Harris of Peckham (CarpetRight) (sponsor of several Academies);
Michael Snyder (Kingston Smith and Corporation of London)(which also spon-
sors Academies); Peter Ogden (The Ogden Trust,7 228th on the 2003 Sunday
Times Rich List with a personal fortune of £145 million, co-founder and
Executive Director of Computer Services Company Computacentre until 1997);
and Peter Lampl (founder of the Sutton Trust, whose wealth comes from a private
equity business). The trusts act in part as brokers between policy and interested
parties and potential donors from business and they are themselves funded by
donations.
Various public sector organisations are also integrated into these networks; the
Institute of Education (IOE), University of London, now has an HSBC iNET8
chair in International Education Leadership, held by David Hopkins, previously
Director of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) Standards and
Effectiveness Unit, and in 2004 Goldman-Sachs sponsored a UK/US Urban
Education Conference at the Institute. The IOE is also a shareholder in Educa-
tion Digital which runs Teachers TV, has taught Teach First students and has had
collaborations with Cambridge Education Associates (CEA, a large education
services business; Linda Neal of CEA sits on the Board of the National College
of School Leadership). Brunel University is a co-sponsor with HSBC of a 16–19
Academy and the Universities of Liverpool, Bristol and the West of England are
also Academy co-sponsors.
In Network 2 there are several ‘crossover’ actors represented: Mike Tomlinson,
ex-Chief Inspector of Schools, Chair of the Hackney Learning Trust and Vice-
Chairman and sometime Chair of the Advisory Board of GEMS; Elizabeth
Passmore, ex-Director of Inspection of Ofsted and Schools’ Adjudicator was also
a member of GEMS Advisory Board, as are Sir Gareth Roberts, ex-Vice Chan-
cellor, Director of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
and DfES adviser and Nick Stuart, ex-DfES senior official (who represents the
John Lyons Charity on the SST council). Such people bridge between public
sector education policy and private schooling and bring their credibility and
contacts to bear in doing so, but also sometimes face conflicts of interest as a result
(see Smithers, 2005). Also represented in both networks are various ‘heroes’ of
reform from the public sector who are models of good practice – of ‘what works’
– or traders in ‘good advice’: ex-head teachers Dame Mary Richardson and Dame
Sharon Hollows (member of the DfES Standards Task Force, who now runs her
own education consultancy company: ‘We are creative and strategic thinkers
with a passion for enabling educational and organisational improvement’,
http://www.hollowsconsultancy.com/cons.html), and serving heads Sir Kevin

Satchwell and Sir Dexter Hutt (on the SST Council) and Deborah Knight (who
was a governor of Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham CTC and is now Director of
Policy of the Academy Sponsors Trust). These more ‘ordinary’ actors serve an
important discursive purpose. They demonstrate that public sector reform is
possible; that it works. They are public sector innovators who can speak about
schools in ways that are recognisable on both sides of the public/private divide.
They show that public sector actors can make a difference and can contribute to
policies of ‘transformation’. Then there are policy careerists like Sir Cyril Taylor
(education adviser to ten Secretaries of State) and Rona Kiley, wife of Bob Kiley,
London’s ex-Commissioner for Transport. Rona Kiley was Director of Education
and Business in the Community at London First (which ‘works to make London
a better city for Business’) before becoming founding Trustee of Teach First, in
which staff from McKinsey’s were involved in pro bono activities; she then became
Chief Executive of the Academy Sponsors’ Trust. She had previously worked in
the US as Executive Director of the Edison Preservation Foundation (partners in
the Young Entrepreneurs Innovation Awards) and was Director of the New York
City Office of Nature Conservancy. She is also a member of the Ministerial
Advisory Group on the London Challenge (DfES) and is on the Advisory Board
of Imperial College Business School. Such actors move across and between sites
of policy or influence and information and speak across these sites, accumulating
discursive authority. They collect and carry with them fragments of discourse
which work to join up and fill in the new policy narratives. Again in the latter
case entrepreneurship and enterprise is a primary theme.
Some participants have philanthropic ‘careers’ of a different kind within personal
charities and causes, service on boards and committees and in public service
positions – the ‘great and the good’ as they are sometimes called – like Paul Judge,
Lord Harris, David Garrard and Michael Snyder. Again they move between
policy ‘sites’ and accumulate knowledge, credibility and social relations. They are
able to bring a form of ‘entrepreneurial capital’9 to bear upon their pronounce-
ments and participations, ultimately dependent on but separate from the power of
their wealth; although as noted already they are also able to speak knowingly
about and identify ‘problems’ and ‘blockages’ and what needs to be done. They are
a new kind of practical intellectual but it is very specific forms of experience and
practice that are valued. They also play a role in narrating and propping up new
compromises within policy and consolidating unstable alliances around policy
solutions.
These then are not ‘political’ networks in the traditional sense. Linkage devices
like the AST and NPC bring together businesses and people of different sorts
with charity and education policy. They animate, inform and encourage the
participation of ‘others like us’. These networks and communities are, in part at
least, a policy device. They facilitate ‘experimentation’ and ad hocery by the state
and they clearly have a tenuousness and shift and change over time, as member-
ships, purposes, boundaries and relationships change. They have elements of

both government and governance but work outside or around the rational-
bureaucratic aspects of government and bring commercial and social entrepre-
neurship10 to bear upon policy problems. These individuals represent a new
chronotope of policy, as people who ‘get things done’ – they bring passion, drive
and dynamism and a new and different kind of expertise to the tackling of social
problems. In all this policy is made businesslike and apparently depoliticised. That
is, policy becomes subject to the supposed qualities of business, efficiency and
cost-effectiveness in particular. The focus is as much on the method of policy as
it is the substance, and the values of enterprise and entrepreneurship, carried
through these networks into policy, are taken to be uncontestable and politically
neutral.
Network 2 shows both a further set of relationships focused around Academy
schools through the project management work of 3Es, which also runs a CTC
and manages two state schools in Surrey and is now owned by GEMS. GEMS and
Cognita, which both own chains of private schools, have indirect links of various
sorts with the DfES (noted above), and Cognita through its Chairman Chris
Woodhead (ex-Chief Inspector of Schools) has relationships with the private
University of Buckingham and CTC sponsor Stanley Kalms – these are vestiges
of a ‘Thatcherite’ education policy network. GEMS had proposed to fund two
Academies itself, but this plan was abandoned in response to criticism from local
parents. There are other ‘crossover’ actors here: David Trigg, head of Greensward
College, a state school which has taken very seriously the business opportunities
opened up by the 2002 Education Act, who has had advisory roles with two
Academies and with GEMS; and Jim Hudson, an ex-primary head who now
works with Cognita and the University of Buckingham.
Philanthropy and Enterprise

The social networks which are identified here interlink business, business
philanthropy, quangos and non-governmental agencies and government
bureaucracies, and there is a recurrence of particular companies and people,
related to particular kinds of policy ideas. The new policy communities emerg-
ing within education policy are both routes of influence and access for business
organisations and businesspeople and new ways of realising, disseminating and
enacting policy.
These new policy communities draw in and upon the ‘energies’ of entrepre-
neurial and policy ‘heroes’, social entrepreneurs and business philanthropists.
In part the philanthropy which is represented in these communities is rooted
in a post-Thatcherite, post-Enron resurgence of corporate social responsibility.
There is also an importation of American-style corporate philanthropy and
the use of ‘positional investments’ by business organisations, as well as a
re-emergence of the Victorian philanthropic tradition, represented for instance

by the United Learning Trust and other religious impulses (Reg Vardy, Robert
Edmiston and the Oasis Trust) (which also carry undertones of evangelism), and
a new version of this tradition which draws upon the personal philanthropy of
self-made business millionaires (Kalms, Harris, Petchey, Garrard, Lampl, etc.).
In various ways, through the Academies programme, Specialist schools, Teach
First, etc., philanthropy is becoming incorporated into state policy. Some of
the participants in this constitute a philanthropic elite which is engaged with
government, party and state in a number of ways as part of different policy
networks.11
PETER LAMPL is the prime example of a new and influential beast: the multi-
millionaire education philanthropist. Donations to schools have multiplied since
the late Eighties when Margaret Thatcher’s government introduced city technol-
ogy colleges – giving business the chance to fund new schools and influence the
way they operated. There are now 365 specialist schools, which are the successors
of the original CTCs, and funding the state system seems to be increasingly popular
among the very rich. Sir Stanley Kalms, chairman of the Dixons Group, PeterVardy,
chairman of Reg Vardy plc, Lord Harris, chairman of CarpetRight plc, publisher
Lord Hamlyn, and retailer Lord Sainsbury are all prominent givers. But Mr Lampl,
who made his fortune in investment, has set the pace in recent years. His summer
camps giving under-privileged youngsters a taste of top universities have provided
the model for copy-cat government schemes and a flagship scheme to fund poor
pupils at a private school, which is putting a sledgehammer through traditional
independent–state divisions. Mr Lampl will be paying up to £850,000 a year to
ensure that The Belvedere School in Liverpool has a 100 per cent ‘needs-blind’
admissions policy. All pupils in the school will be selected on merit (unlike the
Assisted Places Scheme and the old direct-grant schools programme) with those
unable to pay the fees getting Lampl money ( Bunting, 2000).
At an individual level the New Labour discourse of ‘civic responsibility’ is in

evidence here as a reaction to Thatcherite, neoliberal values. This is manifest in
the pro bono work and volunteering of workers by companies like McKinsey’s.
For some companies this is also now a way of retaining and motivating staff.
But this also plays its part in making up ‘portfolios of philanthropic invest-
ments’ (respondent) which may contribute to the promotion or legitimation of
corporate brands, and corporate giving is of course ‘tax efficient’. To reiterate,
I am not suggesting that all of this is totally new; the City of London insti-
tutions (stretching back through the Livery Companies) have a long history of
philanthropic engagement (Green, 2005, pp. 43–4). What is different is the
direct relation of ‘giving’ to policy and the more direct involvement of givers
in policy communities and a more ‘hands-on’ approach to the use of donations:
‘they want to be involved in the way the project is managed, for example’
(respondent) (see Arpad Busson below).12 This is what Peter Lampl calls
‘strategic philanthropy’ or what in the USA is called ‘venture philanthropy’
(e.g. NewSchools Venture Fund).
Where a project has proven its efficacy, we work closely with government to try to
secure nationwide uptake and funding. I have invested money in demonstration
stage projects, and, in partnership with the media, have tried to persuade the
government to take these demonstrations and scale them up at a regional or
national level (Peter Lampl, http://www.philanthropyuk.org/guidetogiving/
personal4_main.asp).
Discussion
As noted already, these networks ‘enlarge the range of actors involved in
shaping and delivering policy’ (Newman, 2001, p. 125) and constitute ‘new
kinds of educational alliance’ which ‘New Labour seeks to create’ around ‘its
project of transformation’ (Jones, 2003, p. 160). They are examples of what
Walter Kickert et al. (1997, p. 37) refer to as ‘loosely-coupled weakly-tied
multi-organisational sets’ and are significantly different from the tightly focused,
local and technological networks examined by Agranoff (2003). For this reason
they are not easily susceptible to the specification and categorisation that
Agranoff undertakes in terms of their roles and functions; nor is it sensible
to attempt to categorise these complex and dispersed networks as a whole in
terms of single functions. Nonetheless, some parts of these networks function
in some of the ways that Agranoff identifies. For example, those parts of the
networks which focus around the Academies programme do operate as what
Agranoff calls ‘action frameworks’ which enable the adoption and implemen-
tation of policy in some innovative ways. The Sutton (Peter Lampl) and Ogden
Trusts also offer and test out particular ‘action frameworks’ and contribute
another of Agranoff’s functions in terms of ‘capacity-building’ (Agranoff,
2003, p. 16), that is, developing and transmitting a knowledge architecture, but
it is unclear to what extent, given their looseness, these networks could be
described as ‘learning entities’ (Agranoff, 2003, p. 3). However, again they do to
some extent inject energy and expertise into the education policy arena in the
form of entrepreneurism and again this has particular relevance to the Acad-
emies programme and to Specialist schools. In this respect also these networks
are a policy device, a way of trying things out, getting things done, changing
things and avoiding established public sector lobbies and interests. They are a
means of interjecting practical innovations and new sensibilities into areas of
education policy that are seen as change resistant and risk averse and in general
terms they ‘pilot’ moves towards a form of ‘post-welfare’ education system
in which the state contracts and monitors but does not deliver education
services.
However, there are other characteristics and functions of these networks which
are not given much attention by Agranoff or other ‘public network manage-
ment’ writers. For example, as I have stressed, in ways that many governance
writers ignore, these networks are also exclusionary and they do not as Agra-
noff suggests represent ‘different mandates’. Rather they are selective and univo-
cal. Some potential or previous participants in policy are specifically excluded

– trades unions for example – and challenges from outside the shared basis of
discourse ‘may be easily deflected or incorporated’ (Newman, 2001, p. 172).
These are exclusive networks based partly on prior relationships and special
criteria of membership – one being wealth, being ‘on-side’ ideologically
another, and personal relationships within government a third. These networks
also work to re-spatialise policy, creating new sites of influence, decision
making and policy action. That is, the ‘territory of influence’ (Mackenzie and
Lucio, 2005) over policy is expanded and at the same time the spaces of policy
are diversified and dissociated. As a result, as these new sites within the contexts
of influence and text production (Ball, 1994) proliferate, there is a concomitant
increase in the opacity of policy making. Within their functioning it is unclear
what may have been said to whom, where, with what effect and in exchange
for what (see Cohen, 2004). Also in contrast to cases examined by Agranoff, or
at least not attended to by him, these networks are in part defined by com-
mercial interest in particular policy outcomes; some of the relationships here
are specifically contractual and financial. As I have stressed, individuals and
organisations may have different forms of involvement in different parts of the
networks but these cannot be assumed to be unconnected in terms of intention
or effects.
Further, it is also important to recognise the discursive and political functions
of these networks. Through them new voices are given space within
policy talk. New narratives about what counts as a ‘good’ education are articu-
lated and validated (see Ball, 2007); in particular the community members
enact, embody and disseminate narratives of enterprise and enterprising solu-
tions to social and educational problems. New linkage devices are being created
over and against existing ones, excluding or circumventing but not always
obliterating more traditional sites and voices. They serve to ‘short-circuit’ exist-
ing policy blockages. The public sector generally is worked on and in by these
new policy actors, from the outside in and the inside out. Linkages and
alliances around policy concerns and new policy narratives cross between the
public and private sectors. New values and modes of action are thus instantiated
and legitimated and new forms of moral authority established, and again others
are diminished or derided. The practical and financial ‘successes’ of particular
individual entrepreneurs are a particular source of authority and legitimacy
here.
These networks are indicative of a new ‘architecture of regulation’ based on
interlocking relationships between disparate sites in and beyond the state and
display many of the characteristics of what Richards and Smith (2002, pp. 28–36)
call a ‘postmodern state’, which is dependent, flexible, reflexive and diffuse but
centrally steered. Policy is being ‘done’ in a multiplicity of new sites ‘tied together
on the basis of alliance and the pursuit of economic and social outcomes’
(MacKenzie and Lucio, 2005, p. 500); although the strength of such an alliance
should not be overstated. These communities contain some ‘strange bedfellows’

and contain actors whose continuing allegiance is to the Conservative party,
as well as others who have made political donations to both Labour and the
Conservatives. Some of the people in Network 1 are ‘survivors’ or carry-overs
from the policy networks of Conservative governments, e.g. Paul Judge,13 Stanley
Kalms and Cyril Taylor.
Conclusion
In this article I have sought to do a number of things: first, to populate the
dynamics of education policy and the blurring of the public/private divide in
relation to policy with real social actors; second, to illustrate the complexity
of motives, rationales and values invested in policy communities which range
from forms of ‘giving’ to forms of ‘investment’ and forms of influence. There
is the possibility within these communities of interest to be both responsible
(personally or corporately) and to gain advantage; third, and importantly, to
demonstrate the particular role of the education businesses and finance capital
within the policy process; fourth, with reference to Agranoff, to indicate some
of the functions of these networks; and last, to indicate the new education
policy communities as ‘policy devices’, as means of governance, as new ways of
getting social management and policy work done and public sector institutions
re-cultured.
However, in accounting for all of this in the terms of the ‘Anglo-governance
model’, what is happening here is not in any simple sense a process of ‘hol-
lowing out the state’ or any kind of thoroughgoing weakening of the state’s
capacity to steer policy. While steering may have become more complicated
across the ‘tangled web’ of policy networks as Mike Marinetto (2003) and Ian
Holliday (2000) argue, the ‘core executive’ retains substantial authoritative pres-
ence over policy and in some respects (certainly in education) has achieved an
enhancement of capacity (Holliday, 2000, p. 173) in monopolising and deploy-
ing ‘a unique set of powers and resources’ (Marinetto, 2003, p. 606; Parker,
2007; Christopoulos, 2008). Ian Bache (2003, p. 300) also makes this point and
describes it as ‘a paradox at the heart of contemporary politics’. What is
represented here is a ‘filling in’ rather than a ‘hollowing out’ (Taylor, 2000)
of the state which involves a studied manipulation of the conditions and
possibilities under which networks operate and the careful, strategic use of
financial controls and allocation of resources.14 Relations here are complex but
clearly asymmetric. Nonetheless, there is an important shift of emphasis involved
which we can think about as a move from government to governance. This
shift is based upon a ‘concern with managing networks rather than directing
state bureaucracies’ (Smith, 1999, p. 250) but it is not an absolute break or
rupture; bureaucracies continue to be the vehicle for a great deal of state
activity.
Glossary
(Not explained elsewhere in the text)
Capita Multinational management services company that holds
numerous government contracts
CEA Cambridge Education Associates, education business, now
Cambridge Education, subsidiary of Mott Macdonald
Cognita Private school company funded by private equity
FEFC Further Education Funding Council (abolished in 2000
and replaced by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC)
Hay Group Global management consulting firm
Kingston Smith Large London-based accounting firm
KPMG Global network of professional firms providing audit, tax
and advisory services
Man Group Multinational company specialising in ‘alternative’
investments
LSDA Learning and Skills Development Agency
NCSL National College for School Leadership
NESTA National Endowment for Science, Technology and the
Arts
PPP Forum The private sector industry body for the PPP/PFI
industry
3Es Not-for-profit education business latterly acquired by
GEMS
UCLES University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate
Ufi University for Industry, a public–private partnership
(Accepted: 18 June 2007)
About the Author

Stephen Ball, CeCEPS, Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London
WC1H 0AL, UK; email: [email protected]
Notes
I am very grateful to Brian Davies, John Clarke, Martin Smith and three referees for their comments on previous drafts
of this article.
1 This is an overview of network participants and their connections rather than an attempt to make direct links
between participation and particular policies, although there are various indications of such links, the Academies
programme for example.
2 See Knox et al. (2006) for a discussion and review of the network method.
3 In 2005 former McKinsey executive David Bennett was appointed as a senior adviser to Tony Blair, as part of a
shake-up of Number 10 after the election. Michael Barber, one of Blair’s key policy advisers and head of the
Treasury Delivery Unit, moved the other way to join McKinsey.
4 An adviser to the Academies and Specialist Schools Trust resigned after indicating to an undercover reporter that
sponsorship of an Academy would deliver an honour (http://education.Guardian.co.uk/newschools/story/
0,,1703426,00.html). At least four Academy sponsors have been interviewed by the police in their inquiry into ‘cash
for honours’ allegations; e.g. see http://www.colin-ross.org.uk/news/651.html

5 GEMS is headed by Sunny Varkey, a Dubai-based entrepreneur. It runs private schools in several countries and
bought a UK group of private schools from Nord-Anglia in 2004 with the intention of building up a chain of 200
‘economy class’ schools by ‘cutting personnel costs’ and increasing class sizes (Varkey,AMEinfo fn, 11 January 2005).
GEMS also runs private health care facilities in the Middle East. In 2005 GEMS bought education services company
3Es and made an offer to sponsor two Academies in Milton Keynes, later withdrawn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/
hi/education/4443512.stm). The Business (6/7 March 2005, p. 7) reported that ‘Blair is considering issuing a contract
to GEMS to build and run schools’ in the state sector.
6 The Academies and Specialist Schools Trusts are now merged (as the ASST); for clarity of presentation I have kept
them separate here.
7 The Ogden Trust is now supporting 42 Specialist schools across the country and sponsors the National Schools
Business Competition for sixth-formers, http://www.businesscompetition.co.uk/html/sir_peter.htm
8 INET is the international arm of the Specialist Schools Trust.
9 What I mean by that is a particular kind of moral credibility and worth, and valorisation of experience, which is
particular to the political discourse of New Labour and which comes from being ‘self-made’ and from turning ‘good
ideas’ into wealth: see http://www.4-small-businesses.co.uk/top-small-businesses-idea-068.html. This articulates
both with Labour’s ‘narrative of enterprise’ and the emphasis given to ‘meritocracy’.
10 ‘The job of a social entrepreneur is to recognize when a part of society is stuck and to provide new ways to get it
unstuck ... Nothing is as powerful as a big new idea – if it is in the hands of a first class entrepreneur’ (Ashoka
website). The UK government has set up an agency called Futurebuilders which has a £215 million fund to make
loans to social enterprises; Peter Wheeler of Goldman-Sachs is Chair of the Board.
11 Three Academy school sponsors,Townsley, Garrard and Aldridge, were also involved in making loans to the Labour
party.
12 Handy (2006) calls this ‘new philanthropy’ and also suggests that this is different from earlier forms of philanthropic
engagement.
13 Sir Paul Judge is Chairman of theTeachersTV Board of Governors, is a former Director General of the Conservative
party and Ministerial Adviser at the Cabinet Office. He is Chairman of the Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and
Commerce and President of the Association of MBAs.
14 Also in passing I want to acknowledge Marinetto’s point about the history of the tension between government and
governance and note the period during the 1950s and 1960s of what Eric Briault called ‘the triangle of tension’
wherein much education policy was undertaken through another policy community involving an often uneasy
relationship between the DfES, National Union of Teachers (NUT) and local authorities.
References
Agranoff, R. (2003) ‘A New Look at theValue-Adding Functions of Intergovernmental Networks’, 7th National
Public Management Research Conference, Georgetown University.
Agranoff, R. and Maguire, M. (2001) ‘Big Questions in Public Network Management Research’, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 11 (July), 295–326.
Bache, I. (2003) ‘Governing through Governance: Education Policy Control under New Labour’, Political
Studies, 51 (2), 300–14.
Ball, S. J. (1994) Education Reform: A Critical and Poststructural Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ball, S. J. (2007) Education PLC: Understanding Private Sector Involvement in Public Sector Education. London:
Routledge.
Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R. A. W. (2003) ‘Searching for Civil Society: Changing Patterns of Governance in
Britain’, Public Administration, 81 (1), 41–62.
Breeze, B. (2007) ‘More than Money:Why Should Sociologists be Interested in Philanthropy?’ Paper to British
Sociological Association Annual Conference, University of East London, March.
Bunting, C. (2000) ‘Captains of Market Forces’, Times Educational Supplement, 28 January. Available from:
http://www.tes.co.uk/section/story/?section=Archive&sub_section=Briefing&story_id=330332&Type=0
[Accessed 25 February 2008].
Christopoulos, D. (2008) ‘The Governance of Networks: Heuristics or Formal Analysis? A Reply to Rachel
Parker’, Political Studies, 56 (2), 475–81.
Cohen, N. (2004) Pretty Straight Guys. London: Faber and Faber.
Coleman, W. D. and Skogstad, G. (eds) (1990) Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada. Toronto: Copp
Clark Pitman.
Farnsworth, K. (2004) Corporate Power and Social Policy in a Global Community: British Welfare Policy in a Global
Economy. Bristol: Policy Press.
Green, C. (2005) The Privatization of State Education: Public Partners, Private Dealings. London: Routledge.
Handy, C. (2006) The New Philanthropists. London: Heinemann.
Holliday, I. (2000) ‘Is the British State Hollowing out?’, Political Quarterly, 71 (2), 167–176.
Jessop, B. (1998) ‘The Narrative of Enterprise and The Enterprise of Narrative: Place Marketing and the
Entrepreneurial City’, in T. Hall and P. Hubbard (eds), The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime
and Representation. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 77–102.
Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity.
Jones, K. (2003) Education in Britain: 1944 to the Present. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H. and Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997) ‘Managing Networks in the Public Sector: Findings
and Reflections’, in W. J. M. Kickert, E. H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjan (eds), Managing Complex Networks:
Strategies for the Public Sector. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Knox, H., Savage, M. and Harvey, P. (2006) ‘Social Networks and the Study of Relations: Networks as Method,
Metaphor and Form’, Economy and Society, 35 (1), 113–40.
Kooiman, J. (2000) ‘Levels of Governing: Interactions as a Central Concept’, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating
Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 138–66.
Mackenzie, R. and Lucio, M. M. (2005) ‘The Realities of Regulatory Change: Beyond the Fetish of
Deregulation’, British Journal of Sociology, 39 (3), 499–517.
Marinetto, M. (2003) ‘Governing beyond the Centre: A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School’, Political
Studies, 51 (3), 592–608.
Marsh, D. and Smith, M. J. (2000) ‘Policy Networks: Towards A Dialectical Approach’, Political Studies, 48 (1),
4–12.
McPherson, A. and Raab, C. D. (1988) Governing Education:A Sociology of Policy since 1945. Edinburgh: University
of Edinburgh Press.
Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Re-inventing Government. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Parker, R. (2007) ‘Networked Governance or Just Networks? Local Governance of the Knowledge Economy
in Limerick (Ireland) and Karlskrona (Sweden)’, Political Studies, 55 (1), 113–32.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1995) The New Governance: Governing without Government. State of Britain ESRC/RSA
Seminar Series. Swindon: ESRC.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. and Marsh, D. (eds) (1992) Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Richards, D. and Smith, M. J. (2002) Governance and Public Policy in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skelcher, C. (1998) The Appointed State. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Skogstad, G. (2005) ‘Policy Networks and Policy Communities: Conceptual Evolution and Governing
Realities’, Canada’s Contribution to Comparative Theorizing: Canadian Political Science Association,
University of Western Ontario.
Smith, M. J. (1999) The Core Executive in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Smithers, R. (2005) ‘Academy in Conflict of Interest Row’, The Guardian, 20 June. Available from:
browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=Smithers%20%27Academy%20in%20Conflict%20of%20interest%
20row%27 [Accessed 25 February 2008].
Taylor, A. (2000) ‘Hollowing Out or Filling In? Taskforces and the Management of Cross-Cutting Issues in
British Government’, British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2 (1), 46–71.
Wedel, J. R. (2001) Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe. New York:
Palgrave.
Wright-Mills, C. (1959) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.


Newphilanthropy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newphilanthropy PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newphilanthropy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S : 2 0 0 8 VO L 5 6 , 7 4 7 – 7 6 5

New Philanthropy, New Networks and New

Networks and Communities

Figure 1a and b: Education Policy Network 1

West London Academy SHINE

Charles Wright-Mills calls it, a new form of ‘institutional mechanics’ ( Wright-

Figure 1a and b: Continued

National Strategies contract DfES

Board of Independent Regulator of foundation

Figure 2: Education Policy Network 2

advice, committee membership, etc. Contacts vary in their significance. One of

New Policy Communities

demonstrates the complexity of the new form of governance apparent in the

http://www.hollowsconsultancy.com/cons.html), and serving heads Sir Kevin

ships, purposes, boundaries and relationships change. They have elements of

Philanthropy and Enterprise

re-emergence of the Victorian philanthropic tradition, represented for instance

At an individual level the New Labour discourse of ‘civic responsibility’ is in

cal. Some potential or previous participants in policy are specifically excluded

should not be overstated. These communities contain some ‘strange bedfellows’

About the Author

© 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 Political Studies Association

© 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 Political Studies Association

You might also like