Kauppinen 2013 - Academic Capitalism and the Informational Fraction of the Transnational Capitalist Class

This article was downloaded by: [189.124.183.80]On: 20 November 2014, At: 11:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Globalisation, Societies and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgse20

Academic capitalism and theinformational fraction of thetransnational capitalist classIlkka Kauppinen aa Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy , University ofJyvskyl , Jyvskyl , FinlandPublished online: 09 May 2012.

To cite this article: Ilkka Kauppinen (2013) Academic capitalism and the informational fractionof the transnational capitalist class, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 11:1, 1-22, DOI:10.1080/14767724.2012.678763

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.678763

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Academic capitalism and the informational fraction of thetransnational capitalist class

Ilkka Kauppinen*

Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland

(Received 29 March 2011; final version received 12 March 2012)

This article is based on the idea that if we are witnessing an on-going shifttowards the transnational phase of capitalism, this objective structuralchange should also be taken into account in higher education studies. Inthis sense, this article reflects the increased scholarly attention into therelationship between globalisation and higher education since the 1990s.The main purpose of this article is to contribute to these discussions bydeveloping dialogue between global capitalism theories and the theory ofacademic capitalism. In order to achieve this, William Robinsons conceptof the transnational capitalist class (TCC) will be amended to include alsothe informational fraction. Furthermore, the causal history of TRIPS(Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) willbe used as an illustrative example of how transnational corporations havestimulated the emergence of academic capitalism at transnational level.First, I will discuss the theory of academic capitalism. Second, I willintroduce and amend the concept of the TCC. Third, I will present myconclusions.

Keywords: global capitalism; transnational capitalist class; academiccapitalism

1. Introduction

For the purposes of this article, I have defined globalisation as a complex

mega-process consisting of long- and short-term sub-processes, such as time

and space compression, deregulation, relative convergence of national higher

education systems and the transnationalisation of production. Moreover,

globalisation is multi-centred (it does not originate from any single nation or

region), multi-form (capitalist globalisation is only one possible form of

globalisation), and multi-causal (it is caused by many sub-processes) and as a

thematically broad set of sub-processes it has implications, amongst other sub-

systems, for economy, politics and education (for a similar and more detailed

definition of globalisation, see Jessop 2007).

*Email: [email protected]

Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2013

Vol. 11, No. 1, 122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.678763

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

The relationship between globalisation and higher education has gained alot of scholarly attention since the 1990s because, for instance, theglobalisation of production has increased the demand for techno-science(e.g., information technology) and other fields closely involved with markets(e.g., Marginson and van der Wende 2006; Rhoads and Torres 2006; Slaughterand Leslie 1997; Valimaa and Hoffman 2008).

In certain respects universities are forerunners of globalisation since the twokey functions of universities, namely, the production and diffusion ofknowledge, have for a long time been based on cross-border cooperationand openness, as well as competition (e.g., Marginson and van der Wende2006, 4). Contemporary globalisation and the both geographically andtemporally uneven emergence of knowledge capitalism have emphasised theimportance of higher education because universities are identified, for instance,as crucial parts of national innovation systems, sources of economicallyvaluable knowledge and, consequently, sources of a key factor of production inglobalising knowledge capitalism. Rhoads (2006) has argued that globalcapitalism is in many ways shaping university reforms. This article is basedon a similar presupposition. However, I will not approach this issue from thepoint of view of such processes as deregulation or privatisation (Rhoads 2006,1016), but by focusing on the role of certain key players in global capitalism:transnational corporations (TNCs) and the emerging transnational capitalistclass (TCC). TNCs, for instance, hope that collaboration with universities willincrease their shares in global markets (e.g., Slaughter and Leslie 1997).

TNCs are the central agents of economic globalisation for many scholarssince these corporations have ability to plan, coordinate and control activitiesacross countries. However, despite of this, it is difficult to find systematicstudies that would empirically and/or theoretically demonstrate the signifi-cance of these organisations with respect to higher education. Much moreattention has been given to international organisations such as the World Bank(e.g., Rhoades et al. 2004).

The theory of academic capitalism argues that contemporary changes inhigher education are based on the deepening of functional linkages betweenhigher education and knowledge capitalism. However, academic capitalism one of the most prominent theories used to explain the role of higher educationin knowledge capitalism does not take sufficiently into account howcapitalism has become transnational. In this article, I will argue that in order togain a more concrete (i.e., many-sided) understanding of integration betweenhigher education and knowledge capitalism one should broaden the conceptualframework of the theory of academic capitalism by paying closer attention tothe key players in global capitalism. This requires engagement with globalcapitalism theories (e.g., Robinson 2004; Sklair 2002). This point is related toa more general argument that higher education studies do not always engageactively enough with broader social theoretical debates to inform theirresearch.

2 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

While the (sometimes provocative) insights, theories and conceptualframeworks constructed by Robinson and Sklair are valuable for socialsciences dealing with theoretical and methodological implications of globali-sation, they tend to neglect certain key dimensions of contemporary politicaleconomy that are of great importance in the framework of academic capitalism.It is crucial to note that both Robinson and Sklair rarely if ever discussintellectual property rights (IPRs), the globalisation of R&D and innovationprocesses. Moreover, their concepts of TCC and TNCs lack systematic inquiryinto the emergence and nature of knowledge capitalism and its implications forhigher education, or how university reforms have contributed to the emergenceof knowledge capitalism. Robinson and Sklair are not the first ones who havestudied transnationalisation of social classes. For instance, Cox (e.g., 1987,271) argued already approximately 15 years ago that the emergent global classstructure had come into existence. Also Hymer (1979), Gill (1990) and van derPijl (1998) have formulated similar kinds of ideas. In this article, I will focuson Robinsons (and to a lesser extent Sklairs) conceptualisations because theyprovide the most fruitful access to develop dialogue between the theories ofglobal capitalism and academic capitalism.

2. Academic capitalism

2.1. Background

One may argue that it is debatable whether it is plausible to speak of academiccapitalism (as an object of study) at all. Does the term imply that universitieshave become capitalist organisations, or that knowledge has become acommodity, or that knowledge production within higher education organisa-tions shares similar characteristics with commodity production in capitalistorganisations? Moreover, if academic capitalism is a plausible term, where andwho are the capitalists and workers in the system to which academic capitalismrefers? Finally, it is also an open question as to what is the theoretical status ofacademic capitalism and what kind of theory is it actually (e.g., Valimaa andHoffman 2008)? These are, in my opinion, both tricky and fascinatingquestions that surround the discussions regarding academic capitalism.However, in this article it will not be possible to tackle these issues.

The main developers of the theory of academic capitalism at both theempirical and theoretical level have been Sheila Slaughter, Larry L. Leslie andGary Rhoades (Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004; seealso Cantwell 2009; Metcalfe and Slaughter 2008; Pusser, Slaughter, andThomas 2006). Of course, there are also other frameworks that seek tounderstand and explain the complex relationship between knowledge capital-ism and higher education systems (see Clark 1998; Etzkowitz 1998; Gibbonset al. 1994; Soley 1995). This article concentrates on the theory of academiccapitalism since it refers to a relatively large-scale phenomenon within broader

Globalisation, Societies and Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

knowledge capitalism in contrast to many other higher education theories thattend to remain thematically more restricted.

The term academic capitalism is used in this article to refer to theintegration of university systems and knowledge capitalism. The termknowledge capitalism refers in turn to the historical form of capitalismwhich started to emerge during the 1970s (e.g., Drahos and Braithwaite 2002;Castells 1996; Jessop 2005). The term academic capitalism is, hence, used ina more restricted sense.

At the abstract level, academic capitalism reflects the intensive enlargementof capitalism. In contrast to the extensive enlargement of capitalism that refersto the geographical expansion of capitalism around the world, the intensiveenlargement of capitalism refers to the deepening of capitalism, that is,commodification and marketisation of those spheres of social life that werepreviously outside the logic of profit making (Robinson 2004, 7). Of course,universities have collaborated with industries and engaged in market-likebehaviours for a long time (e.g., Etzkowitz 1998), but as, for instance,Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) demonstrate, recent decades have witnessed therise of networks and practices that have introduced direct market behaviours,the profit motive and capitalist ethos more directly into universities, at leastin the United States. However, trends in the transnationalisation of R&D showthat also such countries as China and India, and some other low- and middle-income countries (e.g., United Nations Conference on Trade and Development2005), are becoming more and more involved at least with some of thosecircuits of knowledge (e.g., research collaboration between universities and theprivate sector) that characterise academic capitalism.

At a more concrete level, academic capitalism refers to the variety of waysthat markets, states and higher education are interrelated, and the implicationsof blurring the boundaries between these spheres (Slaughter and Rhoades2004, 1015). Hence, the constitutive elements of academic capitalism are thatbroad set of new circuits of knowledge, organisations, networks and relatedmodes of action that link institutions as well as faculty, administrators,academic professionals and students (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004, 15) toknowledge capitalism. The theory of academic capitalism takes into con-sideration different aspects of universities (e.g., instruction and administration)and changing relations between universities and their external environment.Thus, academic capitalism is a many-sided conceptual framework fordeveloping understanding also of such diverse phenomena as the influenceof neoliberalism, new managerialism and calls for accountability, assessmentand rankings. However, this article will focus only on intellectual propertyissues.

Academic capitalism is an actual trend within higher education systems incontrast to a historical tendency1 because academic capitalism is not immanentto the higher education system, that is, academic capitalism is not generated bythe structural features of the higher education system, even if higher education

4 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

has always been a business (Weisbrod, Ballou, and Asch 2008, 37) becausethe mission of higher education needs to be financed and universities have fora long time collaborated with industries. More specifically, the academiccapitalist knowledge/learning regime is not immanent to the practice of sciencewhere internal goods (McIntyre 1984, 1901) involve, for instance, opencommunication (see ONeill 1998). Academic capitalism tends to transformthe system of information distribution within universities by commodifyingknowledge, which in turn encourages secrecy. Hence, academic capitalism isnot only about generating external revenue for universities, but also reflects aconflict between the proprietary secrecy of the market and the opencommunication of traditional science (ONeill 1998, 144).

In terms of Habermas (1987), temporally and spatially uneven emergenceof academic capitalism would reflect the colonisation of the universities by acapitalist market system. However, to speak about the current universityreforms in terms of colonisation would be somewhat misleading since theemergence of academic capitalism has not been solely the product of externalcolonising forces. Quite the contrary, universities have also been activepromoters of academic capitalism in various ways (e.g., Slaughter and Rhoades2004). This is partly because states have reduced their funding for theuniversities, and this has created a need to find new sources of revenue. Forinstance in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, the shifttowards academic capitalism was triggered by diminishing governmentfunding for higher education and because: the corporate quest for new[science-based] products converged with faculty and institutional searches forincreased funding (Slaughter and Leslie 1997, 7).

2.2. Academic capitalism and intellectual property

In this new financial situation, it is contingent how the universities respond,since they have various ways of securing the external funding required.Consequently, it is not predetermined whether universities will adopt practices,such as technology transfer, that are the constitutive elements of academiccapitalism. In any case, the retreat of the state from basic funding triggers newdemands and conditions for the universities, and they have to cover the costs insome way. Thus, academic capitalism is neither a predetermined nor atranshistorical feature of the university system, but a contingent phenomenon,and it is related to the restructuring of capitalism (e.g., the development of newtechnologies and organisational innovations) and the rise of neoliberalism (e.g.,privatisation, deregulation and the abandonment of the normative startingpoints of classical liberalism regarding IPRs).

An open-ended shift towards academic capitalism occurred during the sametime as the knowledge-based economy discourse was gaining a more andmore hegemonic status in many countries and social sub-systems (see e.g.,Jessop 2005). The emergence of a knowledge-based economy meant among


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

other issues that especially technologically advanced countries and TNCs havebecome increasingly interested in protecting IPRs at the global level.The current emphasis on innovations and economically valuable knowledgehas elevated the issue of IPRs also to the agenda of university reforms, evenif technology transfer often relates only to certain specific disciplines(e.g., biotechnology and information technology). This has increased theopportunities of universities to accumulate intellectual property. On the onehand, IPRs provide temporarily restricted monopolies (implying monopolyprofits) and on the other hand, faculty work is increasingly seen as a cost-effective way to accumulate intellectual property (see Slaughter and Leslie1997, 369; also Kauppinen 2008). Thus, it is not a surprise that TNCs areeager to collaborate with universities, which in turn have their own reasons fordeveloping collaborative relationships with TNCs.

For the purposes of this article, I will argue that the first key function ofacademic capitalism is the transformation of knowledge, understood here as afictitious commodity (Polanyi 1944, 725), into a commodity that can besold in markets. This is supposed to be achieved through IPRs (including, inparticular, patents and copyrights). Even though it is questionable (see e.g.,Weisbrod, Ballou, and Asch 2008) whether universities are successful intransferring technology for corporations, the idea of the accumulation ofintellectual property resonates with the knowledge-based economy discourse.This resonance is one reason why resources are allocated to technologytransfer. The second key function is the production of skilful knowledgeworkers for labour markets. The presumption is that, while corporations gainfrom academic capitalism in the form of knowledge-intensive commodities andimmaterial labour, this will strengthen national competitiveness in the globaleconomy. Thus, from this point of view it is not an accident that manygovernments have been active promoters of academic capitalism and, moregenerally, the accumulation of intellectual property within and outside highereducation (Jessop 2005; Kauppinen 2008).

3. Transnational capitalist class

3.1. The concept of class and the problem of methodological nationalism

Around 15 years ago, Pakulski and Waters (1996, 152) wrote: Mostsociologists will accept that structures are historical, that they are formedand that they inevitably expire. Let class also rest in peace, respected andhonoured, but mainly relevant to history. Since then, both internal(e.g., critique of the cultural turn in social sciences) and external (e.g., thepersistence of economic inequality) factors in social sciences have shown thatthe announcement of the death of class was premature.

Of course, the class structure of contemporary societies is highly complex.Class, as a social and cultural formation, cannot be described in isolation,

6 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

but only in relation to other classes. Classes consist of more or less coherentfractions whose members tend to share similar kinds of interests, experiences,traditions and values, and who identify themselves in relation to other classesand class fractions. Class is a fundamentally relational concept. In thisbasically Thompsonian (see Thompson 1978) sense, classes are not eternal,museum-like entities, but rather on-going processes subject to change andredefinition in response to the changing social conditions. However, in thisarticle I will only focus on TCC, because it seems to me that paying attentionto the implications of globalisation for the concept of class, how this relates tohigher education, and what kinds of powerful transnational economic networksare involved directly or indirectly in higher education reforms, is of great(theoretical and empirical) importance in the current situation.2

In social sciences, class is traditionally conceptualised within the frame-work of methodological nationalism. Strong methodological nationalism isbased on the taken-for-granted assumption that the nation-state is the naturaland necessary form of society and the container of social processes andpractices (see e.g., Beck 2005; Sassen 2007). While it is debatable whetherthere is, or has ever been, any social scientific tradition that would identifywith this kind of methodological fundamentalism, it provides, nevertheless, auseful starting point for articulating certain presuppositions in this article.

It is a common feature of globalisation studies to criticise methodologicalnationalism, and global capitalism theories are no exception in this respect.The criticism is based, for instance, on the following argument: nation-statesare not the self-evident organising principle of capitalism or containers ofsocial processes because of the transnationalisation of production and(increasingly also) R&D, trans-border communities, transnational migrationor transnational activism (e.g., Robinson 2004; Sassen 2007; Sklair 2002;Kauppinen 2012). Methodological transnationalism, which is implicitlypresent also in this article, does not necessarily imply a fundamentalist stanceaccording to which nation-states have lost their importance and relevance.

For instance, while it is important to analyse contemporary nationaluniversity reforms in relation to international politics and cross-borderinfluences, it is still plausible to speak of national university systems (andtheir components, structure and environments) and argue that nation-states arestill important resource providers and that they also legitimise these reforms. Inthe sphere of economy, it is no longer as relevant to speak about nationaleconomies, but nation-states still have important functions with respect toeconomy (e.g., guaranteeing property rights). Hence, the globalisation does notimply the separation between state and capital. In this article, nation-states arerather seen as sites of struggle between transnationally and nationally orientedcapitalist classes that try to influence states in order to advance their respectiveinterests (see e.g., Sklair 2002).

At this point, I want to briefly return to the issue of academic capitalismbecause it has also been mainly studied in the framework of methodological


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

nationalism (also when there have been cross-national comparisons). However,I doubt whether methodological nationalism is the most adequate frameworkwhen one is trying to determine those economic networks and agents that arestimulating, and benefiting from, the integration between higher education andknowledge capitalism in the era of globalisation. Indeed, nation-states are notnatural containers of those circuits of knowledge (e.g., research collaborationbetween universities and corporations) that characterise academic capitalism.The problem of methodological nationalism characterises higher educationstudies also more generally. Of course, there are also attempts to go beyondmethodological nationalism (e.g., Marginson and Rhoades 2002). Deem(2001) has, in turn, pointed out that in studying contemporary changes inhigher education more emphasis should be put on local factors affecting thesechanges instead of relying on more abstract theoretical models such asacademic capitalism or the entrepreneurial university. In this respect, thisarticle is based on the idea that both localised knowledge and abstract theoriesare needed. Academic capitalism is characterised by transnational diffusionand adaptation processes and by local and national factors. Therefore, it isplausible to use the concept of academic capitalism in the same sense as theconcept of capitalism in the varieties of capitalism (see e.g., Hall and Soskice2005, 144) research tradition.

Finally, this article is not interested as much in the static structures inthemselves, but rather in movement in structure (Robinson 2004, 144). Themain point here is that by emphasising the study of movement in structure, itis possible to redefine, for instance, the nation-state and the interstate system asa (the) historical form in which capitalism came into being (Robinson 2004,144) instead of seeing it as a constitutive component of world capitalism(144). Thus, the state should be seen as a structure in motion whose form ischanging under globalisation (144). The same applies to the concept of class.Classes are in motion under globalisation because of the changes, for instance,in the realm of production and R&D. In order to capture the conceptualimplications of this material change, Robinson and Sklair have constructed theconcept of TCC.

3.2. Some critical issues regarding TCC and TNCs

According to Sklair (2008, also 2001, 2002), TCC is transnational in at leastthe following senses. First, the economic interests of its members are globallylinked. Second, its members tend to hold outward-oriented global perspectiveson different kinds of issues (e.g., they support free trade and neo-liberaleconomic and social policies). Third, they tend to be people from manycountries including Third World countries and many of them think ofthemselves as world citizens who have local roots. Fourth, they tend to sharesimilar lifestyles, particularly patterns of higher education (especially interna-tional business schools) and consumption habits.

8 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

Sklairs fourth point would imply that higher education has a role insocialising persons to the values and discourses of TCC and binding itsmembers together. Hence, it can be claimed that higher education organisationshave taken and take part (even if unintentionally) in the formation of TCC bycreating a common culture, common habits and shared cognitive structures.Moreover, Seners (2008) article Turkish managers as part of the transnationalcapitalist class provides support for Sklairs claims. The article reveals thatmost of the Turkish managers:

think that they have similar lifestyles with foreign people from the same classwith them and they have more commonalities with these people compared toTurks from different social classes. They also believe that they have commoninterests with the people from other countries that have the same positions withthem. This demonstrates the weakening of bonds that rest on being the citizensof a particular nation state, while the bonds resting on being the members of atransnational class strengthen. (Sener 2008, 138)

Previous insights do not, however, tell us much about what has madepossible the open-ended formation of TCC. In developing their paralleltheories of global capitalism, both Robinson (2004) and Sklair (2002) arguethat the contemporary epoch of capitalism involves a qualitative change inrespect to previous epochs because of the transnationalisation of national andregional productive apparatus. In contrast to quantitative changes withinexchange, this qualitative change in the realm of production (and finance)forms, together with the extensive and intensive enlargement of capitalism, amaterial basis for the formation of a transnational capitalist class (Robinson2004).

There are different ways in which we can misrecognise TCC. For instance,it can be supposed that TCC is a kind of super class that consists of nationalcapitalist classes that form international coalitions with each other (Robinsonand Harris 2000). This kind of process can be defined as the internationalisa-tion of national classes. The formation of TCC is, nevertheless, a differentmatter since it is supposed that the coordinates of this class do not remainnational. In the case of TCC, the locus of class formation is situated in theemerging transnational space (Robinson 2004, 423, 54). Despite this, thereare still multiple competing forms of capital and it is also possible to identifylocal, national and regional forms of capital (Robinson 2004, 47). However,Robinson (2005, 5) claims that TCC, as a group increasingly detached fromspecific nation-states, is becoming the new ruling class.

In a more moderate way, Sassen (2007, 164) has argued that emergingglobal classes, that are beginning to cohere into recognizable global socialforms, should be conceptualised as only partially denationalised. Hence, incontrast to Robinson and Sklair, Sassen (2007, 164) emphasises global classesongoing, even if partial, embeddedness in national domains. Indeed, even ifwe accept that it would be plausible to speak about the transnational interests


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

of certain capitalist groups it does not necessarily imply that these groups

would have become disembedded from their national domains.Discussions regarding the transnationalisation of classes have provoked also

other kinds of criticism. For instance, some globalisation theorists, while

accepting the idea that the current economic system operates as a whole, think

that the concept of a transnational or global capitalist class does not have any

sociological or economical relevance. Castells (1996, 474) is a well-known

example of this:

But a capitalist class? There is not, sociologically and economically, such a thingas a global capitalist class. But there is an integrated, global capital network,whose movements and variable logic ultimately determine economies andinfluence societies. Thus, above a diversity of human-flesh capitalists andcapitalist groups there is a faceless collective capitalist, made up of financialflows operated by electronic networks. . .

However, electronic networks do not produce material goods, knowledge or

innovations, but actors within these networks do. While it is quite unproble-

matic to criticise Castells for a misplaced attribution of agency to entities (e.g.,

financial flows) that are not agents, there have been some other more serious

criticisms directed towards the concept of TCC.For instance Science & Society (2001) and Theory and Society (2001)

involve many-sided debate regarding Robinsons theories. To take an example,

Mann (2001, 466) argues that Robinson and Harris (2000) fail to recognise the

multiple identity of state representatives in such bodies as the World Trade

Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to

Mann, it would be over-simplistic to argue that these representatives serve only

the interests of TCC because they represent also national governments and the

latters agendas are not reducible to TCC. This implies that Mann does not

accept Robinsons and Harris (2000, see also Robinson 2004) argument that

TCC is becoming a ruling capitalist class that leads the global ruling bloc

(involving politicians and various professions). Manns criticism seems to be

supported, for instance, by the decision to invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was

not in the interests of TCC and it is also an open question whether it was in the

interests of the US government either (see also Sprague 2009, 502).My main criticism regarding Robinsons and Sklairs theories is that they

involve certain reductionist assumptions. For instance: As the entire circuit [of

capital] becomes transnationalised, so too do classes, political processes, states,

and culturalideological processes (Robinson 2004, 39). However, this kindof reductionism does not imply that the concept of TCC should be rejected in a

similar vein as Castells has done. It rather means that we should be more

cautious in making any strong a priori assumptions regarding the status of

TCC (whether it is a ruling class or not) and what are the causal consequences

of its emergence.

10 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

Sklairs and Robinsons theories are also based on a distinction betweentransnationally and nationally oriented capitalists. Of course, this distinction isnot simple since local or national production networks may be linked intotransnational networks in various ways (Robinson 2004, 67). For instance,local and small firms may have direct links to the latter because they aresubcontractors to some TNCs that may, in turn, collaborate with a localuniversity. This kind of inter-organisational collaboration makes it increas-ingly difficult to separate local circuits of production and distribution from theglobal circuits. . . (Robinson 2004, 68). Thus, when universities collaboratewith the local economy, it does not exclude the possibility that they aresimultaneously linked into transnational production networks, and vice versa.In this way, for instance, the transnationalisation of R&D may enforcefuzziness between local, national and transnational scales. This kind ofcollaboration makes it also problematic to claim that the interests of nationallyand globally oriented capitalists would always be opposed to each other.

Even though Robinsons (2004) contribution to globalisation studies isbased especially on theory construction, he has also presented some empiricalevidence regarding, for instance, the formation of TCC. A brief look at thisissue will lead us towards topics that will open up the possibility to modify theconcept of TCC in such a way that would make it more relevant in the contextof academic capitalism.

3.3. The formation and structure of the TCC

The economic crisis of the 1970s and the related restructuring of capitalism,together with technological and organisational innovations, facilitated theformation of TCC. Various transnational integrative mechanisms and practiceshad a key role in this process. These included the rapid rise of TNCs since the1970s, foreign direct investments, fusions and mergers, strategic alliancesbetween corporations, interlocked transnational corporate directorates, sub-contracting and outsourcing (Robinson 2004, 5467; regarding mergers in theinformation technology sector, see also Harris 2001, 415).

An unintended consequence of these mechanisms and practices was theuneven transnationalisation of production networks and, consequently,the emergence of transnational social networks between economic actors.While transnational production networks provided the material basis for thedevelopment of TCC, transnational social networks provided the social spacesin which it became possible for the members of TCC to interact, learn fromeach other and develop common strategies and a class consciousness. Thus, theemergence of transnational production networks supports the argument that itis plausible to speak of TCC as a class-in-itself (objective level) whiletransnational social networks, in terms of, for instance, board interlocks andthe transnationalisation of corporate boards (e.g., Staples 2006), support theargument that, even if it is premature to speak of TCC as a class-for-itself


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

(subjective level), these social spaces are, at least in principle, the breedingground for class consciousness within TCC. However, it should be remem-bered that TCC is also an internally competing class and that differentfractions of TCC may have conflicting (short-term) interests and strategies.Consequently, it is an empirically open question whether, when and underwhich conditions it makes sense to define TCC as a coherent political actor(e.g., Robinson 2004; Sklair 2002).

For Sklair (2002, 9), the TCC consists of those persons, who see their owninterests. . .as best served by an identification with the interests of the capitalistglobal system. At a more concrete level, this means that their common (long-term) interests are: the protection of private property and the rights of privateindividuals to accumulate it with as little interference as possible (Sklair 2001,12). At face-value, Robinson has a fairly similar understanding of the membersof TCC. For instance, TNCs are for both Robinson and Sklair organisations inwhich the individual members of the TCC tend to operate as corporateexecutives and members of corporate boards (e.g., Robinson 2004, 55; Sklair2001, 34, 2002, 2005, 59) Furthermore, both share the idea that the membersof TCC share globalising perspectives and that they originate (unevenly) invarious countries (including middle- and low-income countries). However,they have marked differences in how they draw boundaries around the TCCand differentiate it from other elites.

Sklairs (2002, 99) hierarchical model consists of the following fractions ofTCC: corporate fraction, state fraction, technical fraction and consumeristfraction (Table 1).

Thus, Sklair counts the members of state agencies and various professions(e.g., intellectuals) as members of TCC in so far as they are promoting theglobal capitalist system and contribute to the transnational socialisation ofTCC. The corporate fraction (e.g., executives of TNCs) is the most importantfraction while other fractions support and provide legitimacy for it. In thissense, Sklair emphasises the importance of economic capital over other formsof capital without restricting the membership criteria to economic capital indrawing the boundaries of and positing the internal hierarchy of TCC.

Also, Robinson identifies different fractions within the TCC, but in adifferent sense and, in contrast to Sklair, he uses more traditional and stricter

Table 1. The structure of TCC according to Sklair.

Corporate fraction

TNC executives and their local affiliates

State fraction Technical fraction Consumerist fraction

Globalising state andinter-state bureaucratsand politicians

Globalisingprofessionals

Globalisingmerchants andmedia

12 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

criteria in defining the boundaries of TCC. For Robinson (see 2004, 36,Footnote 1), TCC consists quite strictly of those who own or controltransnational economic capital: TCC is the propertied class. As we can see,Robinsons concept of TCC comes close to Sklairs corporate fraction.Furthermore, Robinson divides TCC analytically into three fractions on thebasis of their position in the economic field. These fractions are: industrial,commercial and financial.

3.4. Modification of the concept of TCC

I prefer Robinsons narrower model, because Sklairs model stretches theboundaries of the capitalist class too far to include, for example, political andcultural elites. However, I also think that for analytical purposes it is importantto add a fourth fraction to Robinsons model (see Table 2). I propose that thisfourth fraction should be labelled the informational fraction. Robinson (2004,37) seems to hint at a similar possibility, but does not elaborate his position. Hemerely refers to the Internet and dot-com companies, but this would be aprohibitively restricted way to locate the informational fraction within globalcapitalism (particularly in the context of this article).

Many TNCs are also key players in knowledge capitalism since they hold,for instance, large patent portfolios and, consequently, are able to control theuse of knowledge and can reach into the material world and control vitalresources (Braithwaite and Drahos 2000, 57). Furthermore, they areforerunners in the transnationalisation of R&D and advocates of the globalregulation of IPRs. Thus, they have a key role in establishing transnationalsocial structures and networks within knowledge capitalism. Thus, if weidentify TCC only with three fractions (industrial, commercial and financial)as proposed by Robinson, we will easily miss the linkages between TCC andglobalising knowledge capitalism. Indeed, this has been one of the mainproblems within global capitalism literature.

Table 2. The structure of the TCC including the informational fraction.

Industrial fraction Informational fraction Financial fractionCommercial

fraction

Key organisations:TNCs




Key sectors:informationtechnology,biotechnology,pharmaceuticals, . . .Key discourse:knowledge-basedeconomy


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

The definition of the informational fraction of TCC involves many

conceptual problems. Initially, I would suggest that this concept should be

used to refer to those economic actors for whom the production and selling of

knowledge-intensive products and/or intellectual property and/or transnatio-

nalisation of R&D activities represent the key areas of their business. For these

actors, knowledge is not merely a tool for improving manufacturing processes,

but also, or foremost, more or less the key commodity that is used for

accumulating capital. Indeed, the transnational protection of IPRs and the

enhancement of transnationalisation of R&D have been important objectives

for the informational fraction of TCC (Kauppinen 2012). Moreover, it is (also)

in the interests of this fraction that higher education be deregulated, privatised

and standardised, since these processes stimulate the role of entrepreneurial-

ism, affect research agendas by advancing private interests and enhance global

trade in higher education (see Rhoads 2006).The industrial fraction of TCC refers in turn to manufacturing industries

that are sometimes characterised as medium-technology and/or low-

technology sectors (see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-

opment 1996, 37) in contrast to high-technology sectors in which R&D

intensity is relatively high (ratio of R&D expenditures to gross output). Sectors

of the latter include, for instance, computers, communications, semiconduc-

tors, pharmaceuticals and aerospace (OECD 1996, 37). Thus, from this point

of view the informational fraction of TCC is not limited to the Internet and

dot-com companies or even to information technology companies (e.g.,

hardware, software, telecommunications and electronics), which have facili-

tated the global control of manufacturing, built global structures of information

processing and facilitated the establishment of financial markets that function

in real time (see Harris 2001, 356). The informational fraction also involvesother high-tech sectors, for instance, biotechnology, which is dependent on

advanced information processing, and in which patents are an important

institutional tool in competing with other corporations. Thus, the informational

fraction of the TCC corresponds roughly to the key sectors of the new

economy, and the way that these sectors are integrating with the universities,

is the focus of the theory of academic capitalism (e.g., Pusser, Slaughter, and

Thomas 2006; Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004).One might want to add that while knowledge necessarily circulates in all

economic practices, some of these practices are more knowledge-intensive than

others. For instance, the transnational production of technological innovations

is a more knowledge-intensive practice than the transnational distribution of

motorcycles. This kind of formulation is based on Mark Porats distinction

between the primary (manipulation and production of knowledge and

information) and secondary (utilisation of knowledge and information)

information sectors (see May 2002, 6). The primary information sector is

the key to the informational fraction of TCC.

14 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

Of course, it is quite self-evident that in some cases the informationalfraction will overlap with the industrial fraction (see Harris 2001, 40, 4851).The same applies to the division between the financial fraction and theinformational fraction. If this is the case, why is the category of informationalfraction needed at all? I would like to suggest that there are at least twogeneral reasons and one more specific reason to have this category.

First, the emergence of knowledge capitalism has been taken insufficientlyinto account in global capitalism literature. The category of informationalfraction helps us to integrate discussions about knowledge capitalism intoglobal capitalism theories. Second, in global capitalism literature the categoryof industrial fraction is used too broadly, that is, it does not take into accountthe rise of new technologies and how it is related to the emergence ofknowledge capitalism since the 1970s. Third, the category of informationalfraction will help to develop dialogue between global capitalism theories andhigher education studies. This would also contribute to study of the role ofhigher education in the global economy. Furthermore, the addition of theinformational fraction makes it possible to reveal more systematically thedynamics within TCC (e.g., how the informational fraction has gained powerin respect to the industrial fraction and how old technology is linked to, andtransformed by, information revolution) and between TCC and globalisation(e.g., how the emerging TCC, and especially certain sectors within theinformational fraction, have affected the rise of a global assembly line formanufacturing [Harris 2001, 35] and twenty-four hour global financialmarkets [35]).

As Jessop (2005) has argued, knowledge-based economy has become thehegemonic discourse and it has been translated into many different visions andstrategies on different scales, fields and functional systems including education(e.g., lifelong learning, knowledge factories and advanced educationaltechnologies) and science (e.g., innovations and life sciences). Seenespecially from the point of view of the informational fraction, TCC hasadopted knowledge-based economy as their hegemonic discourse in order toadvance their interests and projects, strategies and visions at the local, nationaland transnational levels.3 It is through this discourse that TCC and other globalelites have identified universities as key organisational components of theirstrategies and visions.

This poses certain challenging questions for universities since previousresearch has demonstrated that for instance transnationalisation of R&D, andhence collaboration with foreign-based TNCs, may lead to: unfair sharing ofintellectual property resulting from local R&D, crowding out of local firmsfrom the market for researchers, possible negative impacts of R&Dfragmentation, a race to the bottom in attracting R&D-related FDI andunethical behaviour by TNCs (UNCTAD 2005, 190). For instance, what kindof responsibilities do universities have, especially in low- and middle-incomecountries when they are collaborating with foreign-based TNCs? Or, if it could


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

be demonstrated that members of the TCC are integrating with universities viaboard interlocks, would it imply that the role of universities as promoters ofnational economic interests would be diminishing? Hence, while this articleis focused on demonstrating that the concept of TCC has analytical value forhigher education studies, it might well be the case that the emergence of TCCalso triggers some normative debates regarding the role and functions of highereducation in the contemporary world.

3.5. TNCs and the stimulation of academic capitalism

In demonstrating the relevance of the concept of TCC for higher educationstudies, I will concentrate on how their key organisations, that is, TNCs, haveindirectly stimulated academic capitalism at transnational level. Some of theinterests of the informational fraction of the TCC (such as the globalaccumulation of intellectual property and, relatedly, establishing favourableconditions for the transnationalisation of R&D) were, among other interests, inplay behind the establishment of the Trade-Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty Rights (TRIPS)-agreement.4 The TRIPS was an indirectly significantinstitutional facilitator of academic capitalism, as it strengthened andbroadened the global protection of intellectual property. The accumulation ofintellectual property is, in turn, one of the key practices when universities try togenerate external revenue within academic capitalism, even though theinstitutional expectations with respect to the financial rewards of thisaccumulation have been far more ambitious than the actual results(e.g., Slaughter and Rhoades 2004; Weisbrod, Ballou, and Asch 2008).

It has been argued that the WTO is the most important internationalorganisation (Braithwaite and Drahos 2000, 67) with respect to the regulationof intellectual property, and TRIPS, in turn, marked the beginning of theglobal [intellectual] property epoch (Braithwaite and Drahos 2000, 63).The paradox of TRIPS is that around 100 years ago (and before that) it wouldhave been rejected as a global charter for monopolists (Drahos andBraithwaite 2002, 38), but in the era of neoliberalism and a changed politicaland economic context, it was argued to be consistent with free trade andcompetition (Drahos and Braithwaite 2002). Indeed, it is quite clear thatclassical liberalists, such as Adam Smith (and probably also, although fordifferent reasons, forerunners of neoliberalism, such as F.A. Hayek), wouldhave resisted TRIPS as antithetical to free market economy and the wealth ofthe nations (see Smith 1982 [1762], 1113)

Changes and developments that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s in thefields of technology (e.g., the development of information technology andbiotechnology in the EU and USA) and economy (e.g., development ofmanufacturing capacity in various Asian countries) provided incentives forcertain interest groups to plan TRIPS in order to secure their comparativeadvantage in the emerging global capitalism. During the same time and for

16 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

similar reasons, the emerging TNCs turned increasingly, for instance in the

USA, to research universities for science-based products and processes to

market [them] in a global economy (Slaughter and Leslie 1997, 6).Of course, the causal history of TRIPS cannot be explained comprehen-

sively by focusing only on economic actors. Hence, in providing comprehen-

sive explanation one should also pay attention, for instance, to nation-state

representatives and how they recognised TRIPS simultaneously as both an

opportunity and a threat for their national interests depending on the industry

sector (e.g., Braithwaite and Drahos 2000). Especially Sell (2003) provides an

excellent and many-sided causal explanation (informed by critical realism) on

how and under what kind of macro-structural conditions TRIPS was

established. However, since the focus of this article has not been the causal

history of TRIPS it is sufficient to focus on the role of the TNCs.Various lobbying networks (organised by globally oriented business

entities) particularly in the field of US film, music, software, agricultural

and pharmaceutical industries began to link intellectual property to trade issues

during the 1980s in order to transnationally protect their intellectual property

(Braithwaite and Drahos 2000, 61; May and Snell 2006, 141). It has been

argued that the representatives of these industries formulated a concrete

proposal and managed to get the support of the US Government (see

Braithwaite and Drahos 2000).Both Braithwaite and Drahos (2000, 71) and Sell (2003) have pointed out

that the Intellectual Property Committee (IPC) had a crucial role regarding

TRIPS. It is noteworthy that such corporations as General Motors, General

Electric, Bristol-Myers, CBS, DuPont, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Johnson &

Johnson, Merck, Monsanto, Pfizer, Rockwell International and Warner

Communications were members of the IPC already in the 1980s (Braithwaite

and Drahos 2000, 71; Sell 2003, 2). For instance, General Motors, General

Electric, Pfizer, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson and Bristol-Myers

were amongst the worlds top 100 non-financial TNCs ranked by foreign assets

in 2004 (UNCTAD 2006, 2802). This finding supports the argument that theemerging TCC had an active role in the causal history of TRIPS. Moreover,

one important task of the IPC was to build consensus among the transnational

business community and particularly among those economic actors that

originated from Japan, Canada and Europe (see Braithwaite and Drahos

2000, 71). This transnational consensus between TNCs and the support they

get from their country of origin governments was the key factor (at the level

of agency) in the successful establishment of TRIPS.TRIPS is neither a sufficient nor necessary precondition for academic

capitalism, but by broadening the category of intellectual property and

strengthening the protection of intellectual property, it created incentives and

opportunity structures also for universities in line with the theory of academic

capitalism. In this sense, TRIPS has indirectly stimulated academic capitalism,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

and within it particularly the accumulation of intellectual property through

technology transfer5.

4. Conclusion

The main motivation behind this article has been the recognition that if we are

witnessing an on-going shift towards the transnational phase of capitalism, this

objective structural change should also be taken into account in higher

education studies. This is the case especially with the theories (e.g., academic

capitalism) attempting to understand and explain the integration of globalising

knowledge capitalism and higher education systems. In studying this

integration, it is not sufficient to explore only the role of nationally oriented

groups. One has to pay attention also to transnationally oriented groups such as

the emerging TCC whether it is defined as a ruling class or not, and regardless

of how embedded, or rooted, its members are in national domains. These issues

are also highly important, but they can be properly discussed only in another

article.In this article, it has been suggested that the concept of the TCC is able to

enrich the conceptual basis of the theory of academic capitalism, when this

concept is amended to include (in an analytical sense) also an informational

fraction. The theoretical and conceptual insights provided in this article should

be subjected to more empirically oriented analysis that would be able to

provide evidence of the role of the TCC, not just in stimulating academic

capitalism, but also in those networks, circuits of knowledge and practices that

are constitutive parts of academic capitalism.For instance, the transnationalisation of R&D (see, e.g., Kauppinen 2012),

board interlocks among universities and TNCs, and TCCs presence in various

intermediating organisations need to be examined to provide a background

against which further theoretical and empirical studies of the relationship

between globalisation, the TCC and academic capitalism may be carried out.

By investigating the linkages between higher education organisations and the

TCC, higher education studies would contribute to global capitalism literature.

This would be of great importance since, for instance, Sklair and Robinson

have paid insufficient attention to knowledge-intensive industry sectors, the

importance of higher education in economic strategies, and the visions of

various countries, in developing their theory of global capitalism.Finally, it should be kept in mind that while previous academic capitalism

literature (e.g., Slaughter and Leslie 1997) suggests that TNCs are eager to

collaborate with universities, the integration between universities and TNCs,

and consequently TCC, is (just like the formation of TCC [Robinson 2004])

not a predetermined but an open-ended process and it may be pushed in

unexpected directions because of contingent conditions.

18 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

AcknowledgementsThis research article was largely written at the Institute of Higher Education (University ofGeorgia, USA), during my visiting period as a Fulbright post-doctoral researcher. I want tothank, with the usual disclaimer, Brendan Cantwell, and Sheila Slaughter, as well as anonymousreferees, for their comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes

1. On the distinction between trend and tendency, see Robinson (2004, 133, n5).2. I will also set aside any questions on how we should conceptualise faculty in terms

of class (see Harvie 2000; Slaughter and Leslie 1997, 9), how students classposition effects their participation in higher education, and how higher educationcontributes to the reproduction of the class structure.

3. At the same time, knowledge-based economy provides the discursive frameworkwithin which the TCC is trying to solve the crisis of global capitalism as partlycaused by, the selfish and destabilizing actions of those [capitalists] who cannotresist system-threatening opportunities to get rich quick. . . (Sklair 2002, 85).

4. It would be also relevant to study TCCs role in the causal history of WTOsGeneral Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). GATS has stimulated forinstance transnational student markets in many countries and, consequently,commodification of educational services.

5. The limitation of this article is that it illustrates the relationship between TCC/TNCs and academic capitalism only in respect to intellectual property issues.However, more comprehensive evidence regarding the role of TCC/TNCs (asconceptualised by Robinson or Sklair) in driving academic capitalism wouldrequire empirical studies that are not currently available (as far as the authorknows).

References

Beck, Ulrich. 2005. Power in the global age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Braithwaite, John, and Peter Drahos. 2000. Global business regulation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Cantwell, Brendan. 2009. International postdocs: Educational migration and academic

production in a global market. PhD diss., The University of Arizona.Castells, Manuel. 1996. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.Clark, Burton R. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities. Organisational path-

ways of transformation. New York: Elsevier.Cox, Robert. 1987. Production, power, and world order: Social forces in the making of

history. New York: Columbia University Press.Deem, Rosemary. 2001. Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and

entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important?Comparative Education 37, no. 1: 720.

Drahos, Peter, and John Braithwaite. 2002. Information feudalism. Who owns theknowledge economy? New York: New Press.

Etzkowitz, Henry. 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of thenew university-industry linkages. Research Policy 27, no. 8: 82333.

Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, PeterScott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics ofscience and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

Gill, Stephen. 1990. American hegemony and the trilateral commission. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1987. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2. Cambridge:Polity Press.

Hall, Peter A., and D. David Soskice. 2005. Varieties of capitalism: The institutionalfoundations of comparative advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Harris, Jerry. 2001. Information technology and the global ruling class. Race & Class42, no. 4: 3556.

Harvie, David. 2000. Alienation, class and enclosure in UK universities. Capital &Class 71: 10332.

Hymer, Stephen H. 1979. The multinational corporation: A radical approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jessop, Bob. 2005. Cultural political economy, the knowledge-based economy, and thestate. In The technological economy, ed. Andrew Barry and Don Slater, 14466.London: Routledge.

Jessop, Bob. 2007. Globalization: Its about time too! http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/184/.Kauppinen, Ilkka. 2008. Tiedon omistaminen on valtaa. Globalisoituvan patentti-

jarjestelman poliittinen moraalitalous ja globaali kapitalismi [Owning knowledgeis power. Political moral economy of the globalising patent system and globalcapitalism]. Doctoral diss. Jyvaskyla studies in education, psychology and socialresearch 338. Jyvaskyla: Jyvaskylan yliopisto.

Kauppinen, Ilkka. 2012. Towards transnational academic capitalism. HigherEducation. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-012-9511-x

Mann, Michael. 2001. Globalization is, among other things, transnational, interna-tional, and American. Science & Society 65, no. 4: 4649.

Marginson, Simon, and Gary Rhoades. 2002. Beyond national states, markets, andsystems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education 43,no. 3: 281309.

Marginson, Simon, and Marijk van der Wende 2006. Globalisation and highereducation. Draft no. 2b, 12 September, prepared for OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/4/37552729.pdf.

May, Christopher 2002. The information society. A skeptical view. Cambridge: PolityPress.

May, Christopher, and Susan K. Snell. 2006. Intellectual property rights. A criticalhistory. Boulder, CO/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

McIntyre, Alasdair 1984. After virtue. A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN:University of Notre Dame Press.

Metcalfe, Amy, and Sheila Slaughter. 2008. The differential effects of academiccapitalism on women in the academy. In Unfinished agendas. New and continuinggender challenges in higher education, ed. J. Glazer-Raymo, 80111. Baltimore,MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

ONeill, John. 1998. The market. Ethics, knowledge, and politics. London/New York:Routledge.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1996. Theknowledge-based economy. http://www.oecd.org/document/14/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1894478_1_1_1_1,00.html.

Pakulski, Jan, and Malcolm Waters. 1996. The death of class. London: Sage.Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The great transformation. New York: Beacon Press.Pusser, Brian, Sheila Slaughter, and Scott L. Thomas. 2006. Playing the board game.

An empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks.The Journal of Higher Education 77, no. 5: 74775.

20 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

Rhoades, Gary, Alma Maldonado-Maldonado, Imanol Ordorika, and Martn Velaz-quez. 2004. Imagining alternativas to global, corporate, new economy academiccapitalism. Policy Futures in Education 2, no. 2: 31629.

Rhoads, Robert A. 2006. University reform in global times. Opportunities andchallenges. Chung Cheng Educational Studies 5: 124 (initially presented at theGlobalization in Higher Education Conference at National Chung ChengUniversity, November 2005, in Chia-Yi, Taiwan). http://www.globalhighered.com/articles/rhoads_global_times.pdf.

Rhoads, Robert A., and Alberto Torres, eds. 2006. The university, the state, and themarket. The political economy of globalization in the Americas. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Robinson, William I. 2004. A theory of global capitalism. Baltimore, MD/London:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Robinson, William I. 2005. Gramsci and globalization. From nation-state totransnational hegemony. Critical Review of International Social and PoliticalPhilosophy 8, no. 4: 116.

Robinson, William I., and Jerry Harris. 2000. Toward a global ruling class?Globalization and the transnational capitalist class. Science & Society 64,no. 1: 1154.

Sassen, Saskia. 2007. A sociology of globalization. London and New York: W.W.Norton & Co.

Science & Society. 2001. The transnational ruling class formation thesis. Asymposium. Science & Society 65, no. 4: 464508.

Sell, Susan K. 2003. Private power, public law. The globalization of intellectualproperty rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sener, Meltem Yilmaz. 2008. Turkish managers as part of the transnational capitalistclass. Journal of World-Systems Research 13, no. 2: 11941.

Sklair, Leslie. 2001. Transnational capitalist class. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Sklair, Leslie. 2002. Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sklair, Leslie. 2005. Generic globalization, capitalist globalization, and beyond. A

framework for critical globalization studies. In Critical globalization studies, ed.Richard P. Appelbaum and William I. Robinson, 5564. New York/London:Routledge.

Sklair, Leslie. 2008. The transnational capitalist class. http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/class_and_culture/sklair.html.

Slaughter, Sheila, and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism. Politics, policies,and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD/London: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the neweconomy. Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore, MD/London: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

Smith, Adam. 1982 [1762]. Lectures on jurisprudence. In Glasgow edition of theworks and correspondence of Adam Smith, Vol. 5, ed. R.I. Meek, D.D. Raphael,and P.G. Stein. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund. The Online Library of Liberty.http://oll.libertyfund.org/Intros/Smith.php.

Soley, Lawrence C. 1995. Leasing the ivory tower. The corporate takeover ofacademia. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Sprague, Jeb. 2009. Transnational capitalist class in the global financial crisis:A discussion with Leslie Sklair. Globalizations 6, no. 4: 499507.

Staples, Clifford L. 2006. Board interlocks and the study of the transnational capitalistclass. Journal of World-Systems Research 12, no. 2: 30919.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

Theory and Society. 2001. Symposium on social theory and globalization. Theory andSociety 30, no. 2: 157236.

Thompson, E.P. 1978. The poverty of theory and other essays. London: Merlin Press.United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2005. World

investment report. New York: UNCTAD.van der Pijl, Kees. 1998. Transnational classes and international relations. London:

Routledge.Valimaa, Jussi, and David Hoffman. 2008. Knowledge society discourse and higher

education. Higher Education 56, no. 3: 26585.Weisbrod, Burton, Jeffrey Ballou, and Evelyn Asch, eds. 2008. Mission and money:

Understanding the university. New York/London: Cambridge University Press.

22 I. Kauppinen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

89.12

4.183

.80] a

t 11:5

7 20 N

ovem

ber 2

014

Documents

Kauppinen 2013 - Academic Capitalism and the Informational Fraction of the Transnational Capitalist Class