In 1995-97, a research team interviewed a cross-section of staff in two Australian public universities about the sacri ces they had to make to pursue their careers. This article discusses the responses of the staff who participated in this study. It uses Coser's concept of the 'greedy institution' to describe the hold which universities have over their staff and details the range of personal and professional sacri ces which staff made in order to be part of their university culture. Comparisons are drawn between male and female staff, academic and general staff, and the two universities which participated in this study. It is concluded that the overall impact of current economistic and neoliberal discourses are such as to minimise differences on each of these scores and produce a certain uniformity of response across site, gender and occupational status. The article suggests that this apparent uniformity is the product of a peak masculinist discourse used mainly by those in the more powerful positions in these institutions, which acts to disenfranchise all those who do not operate within its restricted and restrictive boundaries.You talk about sacri ces. Show us the wooden cross. (University X, JAC4, female academic)

Unemployment policy is currently informed by notions of labour force flexibility, workfare and mutual obligation. Things have not always been this way. Over this century there have been profound shifts in the way in which unemployment and government responsibilities have been conceptualized. Using the notion of ‘welfare rationalities’ to guide the discussion, this paper records the nature of these changes. Particular attention is paid to the ways in which economic objectives intersect with the social and moral-behavioural components of unemployment programmes. The changing nature of these factors is traced through three distinct welfare rationalities surrounding un/employment: relief, full employment and mutual obligation.

This paper describes the impact of market liberalism on public hospitals and universities in Australia. A model is developed to provide a systematic way of taking stock of current developments. Following this, the paper explores the forms of governance to which Australian public hospitals and universities are now subject. Drawing from the empirical evidence, three forms of governance are suggested: behavioural, regulatorycalculative and coercive. The parallels and differences between this proposal and Foucault's (1991) distinction between sovereignty, discipline and governance are noted. Finally the paper asks whether official interventions have increased as well as changed.

No abstract

Current discussions of welfare reform are influenced by various kinds of talk about ‘participation’. Three are predominant in Australia: talk of self‐sufficiency, paying your dues, and team effort. All imply a local/associational/voluntary model of society which deflects attention from broader structural and economic factors. This prevailing treatment of ‘participation’ is heavily biased, ignoring alternative interpretations such as the older tradition that emphasises rights. The general discourse it underwrites is at best ineffective and quite likely dangerous.