IV, NOT 1 ,E REMOVED from Ll (º
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE CONCEPT OF LEGITIMACY IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY-MAKING: ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF TWO POLICY EPISODES IN HONG KONG d»ýýi Uý ý aý. aät1 ýYcýe it IV, NOT1 ,EREMOVED FROM ll (º '.. Cheng Kai Ming A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in University of London Institute of Education February 1987 © Cheng Kai Ming ABSTRACT The Thesis seeks to explain the policy-making process using a legitimacy notion as an alternative to various kinds of rational models. Legitimacy here takes its broadest sense as the recognised or accepted norm or belief that something is appropriate. Based on two ethnographic case studies of policy-making "episodes" in Hong Kong education, the writer argues that policy-actors, in this case policy-advisory bodies, do not necessarily act according to a "means-end" rational model, or interact with one another because of conflicts in interests or power; but that each advisory body has developed within itself some sub-culture which identifies certain legitimacy to making policies. In the first Episode, a policy body on higher educaiton was forced to reject an overall policy proposal which was based on manpower forecasting; or else the body's legitimacy generated from "expert judgement" might be undermined. In the second Episode, an OECD panel caused difficulties because it adopted a "participatory approach" which tended to upset the conventional legitimacy in policy-making. Along similar lines, the writer attempts to explain more briefly a number of dramatic junctures during the two Episodes using the legitimacy explanation as a parallel to the rational model of policy-making. 2 Abstract The writer infers that conflicts occur when certain actor is forced to submit to a different kind of legitimacy. The actors have to strive hard to maintain their original legitimacy, or else they may lose their status in making policies. In so doing, the subject under attention is less the policy output than the policy process. The issue again is not so much a matter of the power to make policies, but the way policies are to be made. Overall, it is the process, and not the product, of policy-making that legitimates or de-legitimates the actor. 3 A CKNOS+JLEDGEMEN T It is expectedly a difficult task to acknowledge all those who have contributed to the study. It becomes particularly difficult when most of the "informants" have been promised anonymity. In fact, most of the information sources have to be coded in the text. This, in a way, is unfair to the "informants" because in the ethnographic convention, they are "teachers" and not "subjects" of the researcher. It is even more so in this case when most of the "informants" are "old-hands" in real policy-making. Under such circumstances, acknowledgements to these "teachers" have to be replaced by apologies for not being able to mention their names. Special gratitude should be paid to Professor Gareth Williams and Professor Peter Williams who have undertaken the pains of supervising such a student who works at a distance and on pressing schedules and uses varying means of communication. I am deeply appreciative of their patient and inspiring supervision, their openmindedness to different schools of thoughts and their extremely useful support. Being a teacher myself, I must say I have learned equally much from their scholarship as well as from their styles of teaching. The study has been made possible only with the support of the staff of the two departments: the Department of International and Comparative Education (of which the then Department of Education in Developing Countries form a part) and the Department of Economic, Administrative and Policy Studies in Education, both of the University of London Institute of Education. Much support has come from Professor M. A. Brimer, Head of Department of Education, University of Hong Kong. It was Professor Brimer who, when I left my career as a school principal, illuminated my way to the academic field. A small part of the expenditures in this study was met by research grants from ULIE and HKU. Leave arrangments by HKU have made the overseas interviews possible. Special thanks go to Sef Lam who took pains during the Chinese New Year Eve to read through the final drafts. The Idea of doing a PhD at 39 and at the risk of losing a job and spending all our savings was very much due to the unfailing encouragement from my wife, Sau Ha. It will be inaccurate to say she suppports me: we share the same will! Thanks also go to Kong Miu and Kong Sen who tolerated so many weekends and evenings without their father's company. 4 CONTENT ABBREVIATIONS 11 INTRODUCTION 12 1. The Two Episodes 12 2. Points of Curiosity 14 3. Aim and nature of the Research 15 4. Delimitation 17 5. Policy-making and Environment 19 6. The Chapter Arrangements 20 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND 22 0. Introduction 22 I. Development of Education Policy in Hong Kong 22 I. I. The system and its evolution 23 1.2. The education policies and their evolution 25 II. The Policy-making Bodies in Education 28 II. 1. The decision-makers 28 11.2. The administration of education 29 11.3. The advisory bodies 30 11.3.1. The Board of Education 31 11.3.2. The Hong Kong Training Council 33 11.3.3. The University and Polytechnic Grants Committee 35 II. 4. A summary 36 III. Educational Policy-Making in Hong Kong 38 III. i. The general pattern 38 111.2. Third party consultation 41 111.3. Manpower forecasting in Hong Kong 43 111.3.1. Special Committee on Higher Education 43 111.3.2. Manpower survey: ITAC and HKTC 44 111.3.3. The 1977 Green Paper 45 111.3.4. Summary of manpower forecasting 47 III. 4. Summary of Chapter One 47 CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH DESIGN 48 0. Introduction 48 1. Conditions and design of the research 48 2. Choice of cases 51 3. The procedures 52 3.1. Phase I 52 3.2. Phase II 53 3.3. Phase III 55 4. The methodology 56 4.1. The ethnographic approach 56 4.2. "Theory" in the research 59 5 4.3. Ethnographic research and objectivity 60 4.4. Ethnographic research and qualitative methods 61 4.5. Ethnographic research and research techniques 62 5. Some methodological issues 64 5.1. The "outsider-insider" issue 64 5.2. A retrospective research 66 5.3. Key-informant interviews 66 5.4. Locating key informants 67 5.5. Reliability 70 5.6. Theorizing 73 5.7. Reporting 77 6. Summary of Chapter Two 80 CHAPTER THREE THEORY 82 0. Introduction 82 I. The Notion of Rationality 84 I. I. Simon's notion of rationality 85 1.2. Substantive rationality 86 I. 3. Procedural rationality I: rationality redefined 88 1.3.1. Lindblom: incrementalism 88 1.3.2. Simon: satisficing 89 1.3.3. Extended notion of rationality 90 1.4. Prodecural rationality II: organizational models 91 1.4.1. Firms as organizations 92 1.4.2. Government as organization 92 1-4-3. Organization as "garbage can" 93 I. 5. Procedural rationality III: political consensus 93 1.6. Partisan rationality: policy-making by interactions 95 1.6.1. Allison: decision as resultants 95 1.6.2. Truman: interest group interactions 96 1.6.3. Archer: political exchange 96 I. 6.4. Lindblom: persuasion 97 I. 6.5. Love: manipulation of process 97 1.6.6. Bachrach and Baratz: control of agenda 98 1.6.7. Lakes: latent influence 99 1.6.8. Marxist theories 99 1.7. An interim summary 99 II. Legitimacy in Policy-Making 102 H. I. The meaning of legitimacy 102 II. 1.1. General definition 102 11.1.2. Weber's notion of legitimacy 104 11.1.3. Habermas' legitimation crisis 105 11.1.4. Legitimacy: Otte 107 11.1.5. An interim summary 109 II. 2. Sens es of legitimacy in policy-making 110 11.2.1. Education "for" legitimacy 111 II. 2.2. Education "as" legitimacy 112 II. 2.3. Process to legitimate the State 113 II. 2.4. Process to legitimate policy 115 II. 2.5. Interim summary: senses of legitimacy Ile 6 II. 3. Expertise and legitimacy 119 II. 3.1. Expertise: an indispensable element 119 11.3.2. Experts as actors 121 II. 3.3. Expertise and government bureaucracy 123 11.3.4. Expertise and the State 125 II. 4. Consulation as legitimacy 126 11.4.1. Participation in policy-making 127 11.4.2. Advisory committees for exchange of legitimacy 130 II. 4.3. Advisory committees for legitimation 134 I1.4.4. Third-party consultation 135 II. 4.5. Public opinions 137 11.5. Summary on legitimacy 138 III. The multiplicity of models 139 III. 1. The Allison models and their interpretations 141 III. 1.1. Allison: parallel explanations 141 111.1.2. Kirst: alternative perspectives 143 111.1.3. Peterson and Williams: multiple dimensions 144 111.1.4. Lane: the "right" model 144 111.1.5. Crowson: models as prescriptions 145 111.1.6. Benjamin and Kerchner: actors' perspectives 146 111.1.7. Bush: a comprehensive model 146 111.2. A multiple perspective approach 147 111.2.1. Parallel explanations and reality 147 111.2.2. The multiple perspective approach 148 IV. Summary on Chapter Three 150 CHAPTER FOUR THE CRE REVIEW (1980-1981) 152 0. Introduction 152 I. Operations and Outcomes of the CRE 153 I. I. The appointment 153 1.2. Terms of reference of the CRE 154 1.2.1. Six considerations 154 1.2.2. Areaa of study of the CRE 158 1.3.