Advertisement

Acting on Society: Quantification, Technologies of Performance, and Erasure of “the Social”

  • Patrick O’Keeffe
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter analyses the use of quantification to make the wheat industry amenable to governing and, policy makers’ use of technologies of performance to make wheat export market deregulation possible. Specifically, this assemblage of technologies, including performance objectives, cost-benefit analyses, econometric modelling and audit are focused on assessing and coercing the AWB, to narrow its value and focus towards maximising growers’ returns. These technologies helped construct wheat prices as an integral mechanism for measuring and assessing the performance of statutory wheat marketing. In addition, this contributed to the construction of wheat prices and supply chain costs as the primary data for understanding value and performance of wheat export marketing, and the maximisation of wheat prices as the central ambition of wheat marketing policy. In addition, I show how policy discourses marginalise social concepts such as equity and dismiss objections to deregulation on social grounds, due to the subjectivity of the data informing these objections. Thus, policy discourses effectively erase the social world by discrediting the social, on the one hand and, portraying markets and information produced in markets as the legitimate reality which should be considered in policy making.

References

  1. ACIL Tasman, (2004), A review of the NCP Grain Market Reforms: NCC occasional series, Prepared by ACIL Tasman, Canberra: Ausinfo.Google Scholar
  2. Allen Consulting, (2000a), The Wheat Marketing Act 1989 – The Economic Impact of Competitive Restrictions, Sydney: Allen Consulting Group.Google Scholar
  3. Allen Consulting, (2000b), The Wheat Marketing Act 1989 – The Social Impact of Competitive Restrictions, Sydney: Allen Consulting Group.Google Scholar
  4. Australian National Audit Office, (1989), Report on the audit of the Australian Wheat Board, 1988–1989, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  5. Australian National Audit Office, (1990), Report on the audit of the Australian Wheat Board, 1989–1990, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  6. Australian National Audit Office, (1991), Report on the audit of the Australian Wheat Board, 1990–1991, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  7. Australian National Audit Office, (1992), Report on the audit of the Australian Wheat Board, 1991–1992, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  8. Australian National Audit Office, (1993), Report on the audit of the Australian Wheat Board, 1992–1993, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  9. Australian National Audit Office, (1994), Report on the audit of the Australian Wheat Board, 1993–1994, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  10. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, (1987), Wheat marketing and assistance, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  11. Hilmer, F, Rayner, M., and Taperell, G., (1993), National Competition Policy Review, [online] http://ncp.ncc.gov.au/docs/National%20Competition%20Policy%20Review%20report,%20The%20Hilmer%20Report,%20August%201993.pdf [Accessed July 30 2015].
  12. Industries Assistance Act 1973 (Commonwealth).Google Scholar
  13. Industry Assistance Commission, (1983), The Wheat Industry, Report No. 329, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  14. Irving, M., Arney, J., and Linder, B., (2000), National Competition Policy review of the Wheat Marketing Act 1989, Canberra: National Competition Policy – Wheat Marketing Act Review Committee.Google Scholar
  15. Kuehne, G., (2012), My Decision to Sell the Family Farm, Agriculture and Human Values 30(2), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  16. National Competition Council, (2004), NCC Occasional Series: A review of the NCP grain market reforms, AusInfo, Canberra.Google Scholar
  17. Productivity Commission, (2010), Wheat export marketing arrangements: Report no. 51, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  18. Productivity Commission, (2005), Review of National Competition Policy reforms: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report, No. 33, 28 February 2005, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
  19. Productivity Commission, (2001), Structural Adjustment – Key policy issues, Commission Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra.Google Scholar
  20. Productivity Commission, (2000), Single-desk marketing: Assessing the economic arguments, [online] http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/single-desk [Accessed December 20 2016].
  21. Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport, (1988), Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport, Canberra: AGPS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick O’Keeffe
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Global, Urban & Social StudiesRoyal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations