New Zealand Sociology in a neo-liberal era: Strands of Political Economy in NZ social science Paper on behalf of SAANZ for National

Sociological Associations Meeting: Taiwan (n=8500)

Charles Crothers Dept. of Social Sciences AUT University Auckland, NZ February, 2009

(1) Introduction This paper reports & repeats previous descriptive work on the historical development and present situation of NZ sociology (prefaced by a short description of NZ), but also endeavours to extend this outwards - particularly in exploring the extent to which NZ sociology has contributed to the political economic critique of NZ society and its models of society and understanding of NZs global situation: a task I refer to as societal interpretation. Key themes addressed in the more analytical later stretches of the paper are: - model of society/political economy & relations to social critics - indigenisation - effects of political/economic cycles - public involvement with social science - role of sociology within the array of the social sciences. My work is grounded in (historical sociological) investigations of NZ sociology and social sciences although extended through my joint work with Jennifer Platt on international sociology and with some of the extensions due to Burawoys provocation with his notions of public sociology. In respect to this latter, my concern is (in part) to amplify some of his analysis by closer examination of the possibilities for carrying out sociological work within various of his schematic categories, since different genres and/or traditions might be deployed within each (i.e. there are historically-relevant structural alternatives). (2)Some Background: Key Social Characteristics of New Zealand New Zealand has some obvious features: it is small (in physical size but more especially in population), with a diverse and rugged landscape (clean, green and beautiful) and a temperate climate. (Note: this section is largely reproduced from Crothers, 2004a.) It is distant from Europe, and shares the status of white settler colony with the US, Canada and Australia (and to a lesser extent the temperate countries of Latin America and also South Africa). Large immigration streams from the UK, and more recently other sources such as the Pacific, overwhelmed the indigenous Maori population. As a semi-periphery country tied economically, and to some extent politically and militarily, to its far-distant mother country and imperial

hub, New Zealand tended to produce primary products in exchange for industrial goods and services. The general shortage of labour in early New Zealand meant that demands such as those for an 8 hour day: far below the norms back home, were (mainly) met, and a drive towards eschewing social distinctions was paramount. In addition, an ideology of egalitarianism (Jack is as good as his master) was reinforced by the material conditions. Affordable land was fairly readily available and this at the least allowed labourers to supplement wages with vegetable and fruit fairly readily grown in an equable climate. Social hierarchies in various forms inevitably continued, but changed. For example, a wealthy squattocracy reared sheep on leasehold land on the vast South Island tussock plains, with teams of shepherds. But this class was cut into by the land reforms of the 1890s. From this time, too, there was State action on housing, an early version of an active labour market policy, and pensions decreased the hardships of the poor. The egalitarian theme continued for well over a century. New Zealanders were what might be termed primitive socialists (in that this ideology was largely unarticulated): they considered it their birthright to receive good straightforward schooling (at least through to secondary level, and with cheap availability of tertiary education), good and adequate hospital care (and subsidised primary health care through GPs) and, were they to fall ill, become old or face difficult economic circumstances they expected the relief of an adequate pension and/or reasonable quality state housing. There was a flip side to this bargain with the State: New Zealanders were really not much entitled to complain about the services provided, or to launch criticisms. However, since the standard of provision was adequate and fairly uniform across the country this was not a major drawback. It did lead, though, to a stultifying homogeneity, one aspect of which was a tall poppy syndrome: anyone who excelled was cut down to size through mild criticism, so there was a premium on keeping talents and differences hidden. But although New Zealand was egalitarian in ideology it was hardly so in material circumstances. It might be thought of as a one class society rather than a classless one. It was dominated by a broad layer that mainly featured an upper working class or lower middle class commonality. Attitudes and behaviour tended to conform within narrow ranges shaped by a limited range of social institutions (sometimes colloquially referred to as rugby, racing and beer). The prime economic force was agriculture, with some import substitution secondary industry sheltering behind considerable import-barriers. Before the recent major neo-liberal reforms, it had thus long prided itself on being markedly egalitarian. However, in the mid-1980s a neo-liberal government came to power and rapidly changed the countrys economic organisation, with far-reaching social implications. Most of the economic protections were stripped away, leaving the economy totally exposed to world competition in a situation where its small size meant that economies of scale could not readily be derived. Meanwhile, its privileged place in the UK market (supplying meat, dairy products and wool) was sharply reduced as the UK entered the EU. The social effects included a massive increase in inequality, and the clawing back of progress in reducing poverty at the lower reaches

of the social order, particularly occupied by Maori and Polynesian workers who had been brought in after WW2 to person the factories of what was then a steadily expanding economy. Since then a third way government has halted further social erosion, but has not reversed it. The extent to which the Clark government shook off the shackles of the previous neo-liberalism is contestable (Grant, 2007; Lunt, 2009) What might we conclude from analysing key NZ social features would be the absolute or relative advantage of pursuing sociology in NZ and what should its contribution to world sociology might therefore be? Broadly, NZ fits within several categories of society: settler colonies, small-scale societies, distant islands and it seems that comparisons amongst these groupings might be useful. Perhaps NZs reputation as a model society ethnically has some analytical leverage and also our two rounds of being an international social experiment: around the turn of both centuries. (3) History of NZ Sociology The history of sociology in New Zealand has not been the focus of much sustained attention, although there is a series of commentaries which (repeatedly) survey the broad parameters, but fail to advance much in filling out the details. (Indeed, already by 1986 Gribben and Crothers warn against the endless recycling of material and undue focus on the sociology of New Zealand sociology: fortunately a warning partly accepted thereafter. (This section is based on Crothers, 2006b ). The only significant attempts to pin down the state of the discipline have been Timmss (1970) very early overview, and the first article ever published in New Zealand Sociology (Gribben and Crothers, 1986). Some of the founding fathers (all still alive at the time of writing) have published memories (Willmott, Hancock, Robb, Thompson, Fraser: see Hancock et al, 1996; Spoonley, 2003) but these are very brief, and no deposit of oral histories has been laid down. Sociology is touched on in various University histories (e.g. Sinclair, 1983; Barrowman, 1999; Tarling, 1999) but usually only in passing. Somerset (New Zealands earliest sociologist) is mentioned in Carter (1993), but only as viewed from the perspective of the way his career inter-locked with the career of his more prominent colleague Beeby. No New Zealand sociologist has been honoured with a book-length biographical account (or likely to be). (3.1) A long Pre-history: -1960 The early period of development begins with Popes (1887) long-before-its-propertime civics textbook. Later, during the turn of the century Liberal government there were a few social research projects carried out here and there by government officials (e.g. studies of household budgets). The tours of New Zealand by eminent UK social researchers, such as the Webbs in 1907 did not seem to inspire much local social science research activity, although their accounts have some utility. During the interwar period, Sociology was somewhat mysteriously included in the federal University of New Zealands curriculum for a Diploma in Social Science, and although this was not formally taught, apparently several students each year sat the examination (Timms, 1970). In the mid to late 1930s, Sociological research was supported, in part through the establishment of the New Zealand Council of Educational Research (NZCER) with Carnegie money, and under a general influence exuded by the Institute of Pacific Relations and through visits by American rural sociologists Kolb and de Brunner and

resulted amongst other things in the publication of New Zealands first sociological community study: on Littledene a rural centre some 70k outside of Christchurch. A social research unit was established within the DSIR and this investigated the living standards of dairy farmers and tramway workers, until it was (somewhat mysteriously) closed down: in part because of the controversial-ness of its findings, and in part because of the general erosion of government energy with the advent of World War II. During WWII, an industrial psychology unit was attempted to facilitate New Zealands industrial war effort and rural sociology was developed within the Department of Agriculture (Carter, 1986, 1988). During the immediate post-war years, at VUW, the ethno-psychology school of Beaglehole had a considerable influence. (3.2) The Founding Period: 1960-1970s In the late 1950s Sociology began to be taught at both Victoria University College (VUC, later VUW) and Canterbury University College (CUC, later CU): within departments of Social Work and Psychology respectively. After a few years of only first year teaching, a more extended sequence of courses came to be offered, and by the mid-1960s the sociology programmes acquired independence and the first chair in Sociology was appointed (Prof. Robb at VUW in 1967). Auckland, the fledgling Waikato University (WU) and Massey (MU) also provided sociology, and in particular, the appointment of chairs, in part picking up on the outpouring of interests in things social that accompanied the student unrest of the 1960s. All the New Zealand departments passed through rocky gestation periods, with high staff turnover and sometimes difficulties with students. Sociologys late development in NZ may have stemmed from stonewalling from conservative senior dons with Oxbridge backgrounds. A community survey tradition dominated research in New Zealand sociology in this period examining community issues and migration using surveys conducted, with community support, by classloads of senior students. (3.3) The Golden Age: mid-70s through mid-90s. According to conventional indices, New Zealand sociology has .. become institutionalised as a separate discipline. There are 5 well-established, autonomous university departments situated in the major universities and these departments train a considerable number of students at undergraduate and postgraduate levels; there is an active professional association with national standing; and there is a lively production of local texts. Where sociologists engage in interdisciplinary research and teaching (e.g. in womens studies) or in joint lobbies on policy issues with other social scientists they come to these projects with a well-established identity. That sociology is accepted as a profession, not only within the academy but also within the community at large, is shown in the large number of sociologists employed outside tertiary institutions (Baldock, 1994: 595). An initial flirtation with American sociology was soon displaced by a solid drawing on UK sociological traditions. Earlier New Zealand sociology had been dominated by studies in the following areas: - demography and family-related studies - studies of ethnic minorities - areal and community studies - social stratification

sociology of education study of political behaviour.

(3.4) Circa-Millenium: down to the present: Sociology is now taught in the School of Social Sciences at (ex-polytechnic) AUT, as well as all three Massey campuses (Palmerston North, Albany and Wellington), within the Otago University anthropology offerings, and is part of the curriculum in many polytechnics and Wananga (Maori learning providers). However, in many sites, university reorganisation has seen Sociology as a discipline absorbed into broader schools, although it may continue to enjoy some autonomy as a programme within the School: i.e. Social and Cultural Studies at MU Albany and VUW; Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work School, MU PN; Social Science, Tourism and Recreation Group in the Environment, Society and Design Division, LU; Sociology & Sociology Policy at WU. The University of Auckland is the only hold-out with a continuing stand-alone sociology department, and CU almost so: although anthropology has been recently added in. Most recently in the South Island there has been a symmetrical pattern: while CU has been growing anthropology within its well-established Sociology department, OU has begun to grow sociology within its well-established anthropology department. The one professor per Department rule has now been breached in both directions, with some Sociology programmes remaining chairless for extended periods (UW, MU at Palmerston North) while others have sprouted several (University of Auckland now with 3!). It is always difficult to measure the extent of involvement of sociologists in other disciplines or subjects, and I would estimate that there is a considerable interest greater than Baldocks slightling attention (1994). In this most recent period Sociology has increasingly to fight against a closing-in horde of speciality interestsubjects (womens studies, criminology, cultural/communication studies etc). One result of this competition, coupled with internal tendencies within the discipline, has been the abandonment of compulsory teaching curricula (except for those intending to pursue the discipline at post-graduate level) so that requirements for compulsory courses in theory and methods have been dropped by many departments, and there is a premium on developing sexy courses (or courses with sexy titles) to attract recalcitrant student demand. Another cumulating shift has been the development of a more generous funding environment, but accompanied by a heightened pressure to publish or perish. These larger potential hoards of research funding treasure have allowed the setting up of several important research projects including: New Settlers (Andy Trlin), New Zealand workforce (Paul Spoonley), Local Authorities (Christine Cheyne), Whanau/Family Health (Peter Davis), Urban Maori Disparities (Richard Benton, Charles Crothers), Community partnerships (Wendy Larner), Housing (David Thorns) and Attitudes to GE (Rosemary du Plessis). However, material from these large-scale projects seems yet to have penetrated into the undergraduate curriculum or texts (see Crothers, 2004).

Clearly, the book publishing possibilities for New Zealand sociologists have opened up, and there is a steady stream of sociology collections (cf. Gribben and Crothers, 1986: p6). But, there remain few proper books in New Zealand sociology (in quite marked contrast to the Australian situation). To the earlier bouquet of books by Somerset, Baldock, Pearson, and Pearson and Thorns, have now been added works by Beaglehole, Bell, Dew, Pearson, Thorns. (Other, non-New Zealand focused studies have been published by New Zealand-domiciled sociologists: e.g. Bell, Carter, Crothers, Davis, Pearson, Thorns etc.) New Zealand sociology has long had some flirtation with those in power (especially in national politics) (e.g. Margaret Shields who was a junior Minister in the 3rd Labour Government and now chairs the Wellington Regional Council), and this has perhaps escalated in the recent period with 2 senior cabinet ministers with sociology backgrounds (Steve Maharey and Paul Swain), not to mention sociologists who are respectively the Prime Ministers husband and the Governor-Generals sister (!). Within Universities there is a large trend, too, for sociologists to be sucked up into academic bureaucracies. While this should represent a major opportunity for sociology to have a positive effect, there are no obvious signs of these, and indeed it is at least as likely that these links have been distracting to disciplinary progress. (3.5) The historical trajectory of NZ Sociology: a Conclusion: With the waning of post-modernist influences, it may again become possible to raise questions concerning the progress New Zealand sociology has achieved over the 45 or so years of its formal deployment in New Zealand. The difficulty in raising this question, of course, is that there is only a New Zealand sociology in a very loose sense. Certainly, there are no signs that it is other than in good heart: the flows of students, conference-papers and research continue, and some coherence and continuity have been maintained in the face of shifting organisational contexts. But if a higher standard of judgement is to be employed, New Zealand sociology is no further ahead of itself than it has ever been. There are few signs of cumulation, of laying down traditions, of getting any further ahead in tackling key issues in the research agenda or even groping towards some sense of shared research agenda. We know no more than we ever have about the changing social realities of New Zealand, and sociologists are seldom seriously involved in policy debates. The requisite level of self-consciousness, leadership and organisation to tackle such an agenda of tasks just does not seem exist. And there are few signs that this will markedly improve in the future. (4) Public Sociology (PS) in New Zealand: NZ Sociology has not been noted for its public involvement: indeed whereas a couple of decades ago there was some concern and debate about sociological interventions this seems to have faded more recently (This section draws on Crothers, 2007). For example, whereas several public statements were issued by the SAANZ over 30 years ago, none have been made since. There are 5 ways in which NZ become involved outside the narrower bounds of academic modes of sociology 1 civic sociology 2 government sociology 3 deep left sociology 4 issue-related sociology

5 High theory sociology (4.1) Civic Sociology PS was built into the foundation of NZ sociology, albeit piecemeal efforts which were not particularly evidence-based. Jim Robb (VUW 1st NZ sociology prof.) was a major advocate for homosexual law reform, while Richard Thompson (CU) wrote and advocated on transport and civic issues, race relations and also church-related issues Bill Wilmott (CU Professor) was involved with China-NZ friendship links and expressed wider social concerns (e.g. concerning unemployment) and Allan Levett brought in several American approaches to policy development in the NZ Labour Party and developed survey work on political networks. Rosemary Seymour (WU) was prominent on feminist issues, with her mantle later taken up by Rosemary DuPlessis (CU). Peter Davis (CU, AU) took a partially-academic path that brought attention to health and Pacific issues. More recently, Paul Spoonley (MU) has been a prominent spokesperson and writer on ethnic/migrant issues and an active contributor to debates on being a New Zealander. (4.2) Government-orientated Sociology. In the early 80s a cluster of applied sociologists working in government (in departments including Statistics, Works and Development, Internal Affairs, Scientific and Industrial Research) were sufficiently vocal that their mode was seen as a distinguishing characteristic of NZ sociology. Perhaps the high point was the 1987 Royal Commission on Social Policy where a large team of feminist sociologists wrote interpretive essays, while other sociologists provided advice in relation to policy areas and on the commissions survey of NZers values. Some in this group later became consultants, while others moved into academia. More recently there has been infiltration from sociologists into the public sphere of government at higher levels (than before) and from outside academia: notably Steve Maharey (Minister of Social Development), Paul Spoonley again, Geoff Fougere (through the Public Health Committee), Peter Davis, Christine Cheyne (Prime Ministers Dept.), Phil Harington (Lotteries Board) This was a broad move supported by a sympathetic post-1999 Labour-led government with which there was a substantial overlap of personnel. Several conference themes in early 2000s were on the relation of sociology to policy (although not all that much of the material in such conferences was on this topic!). (4.3) Deep Left Sociology Although many NZ sociologists flirted with Marxist approaches in the 1970s, it never became a strong feature of mainstream sociology. David Bedggood has nevertheless been a persistent voice from this orientation with a few others together with support from outside sociology: Bruce Jesson, Jane Kelsey (AU), Brian Roper (OU), and earlier Rob Stephens (CU). There have been no NZ equivalent to investigative journalists such as Pilger although some social issues journalists (e.g. Simon Collins from the NZ Herald and Gordon Campbell from the NZ Listener) have written interesting material. However, this local thread of public sociology seems limited theoretically and empirically, presumably partly because there is not much room for such a tradition to work in NZ.

(4.4) Issue related/driven sociology Of its own volition, mainstream sociology often takes aboard an agenda which includes dealing with key issues of the day and endeavours to give voice to suppressed concerns. Its alertness to social hurt is (hopefully) in advance of the slower mobilising of government research and eventually policy responses: e.g. in the late 80s early 90s small poverty studies. Also there is a slew of studies on particular issues e.g. handicapped (Peter Beatson, MU), some showing partial links with social justice professionals. Moreover (as in the empiricist do-gooding stream of UK sociology) there are links to social work/social policy traditions: e.g. John McCreary, Mike OBrien, and Christine Cheyne. (4.5) High Social Theory An Auckland group (Laurie Simmons and Heather Worth) had some success in the late 1990s/early 2000s in bringing leading Continental theorists to NZ: Derrida, Zisek and Baudrilliard. Amazingly audiences filled Auckland Town Hall and books (very loosely) based on the visits were published after. Simmons has also edited a book on NZ intellectuals. (4.6) Interrelations and a conclusion An issue in any public social science is crossover between groups in power, out of power (e.g. in official Opposition) or completely isolated. Critics of yesterday become government apologists of today. A main problematic limiting the development of Public Social Science in NZ is that because professional sociology is largely left untilled, there is not a solid platform on which PS can be built.

(5) Strands of Political Economy in NZ social science: an indirect form of PS In my view the central task of a national sociology is to provide both political economy and broader (philosophical anthropology) analyses, as well as providing local contributions to world sociology and a plethora of locally-orientated sociography. Every society (and social group) carries (and to a degree is constituted by) a model of society (a dominant ideology) which provides considerable guidance to issues (seldom consciously raised) such as what are the types of people within the society?, the principles upon/around which it is organised?, what are the values it holds dear?, how does it attempt to mould the character-structures of those within it? to what other societies is it similar? what are the key concerns of its citizens? and so forth. Of course, such a model is highly likely to be contested and for alternative versions to be held by different groupings within that society. Above all, it is the duty of social scientists (particularly sociologists in this current instance) to engage with this model of society in a variety of modes: perhaps most importantly holding it up to scrutiny and critique in terms of the extent to which it is achieving its own values but also documenting its various facets and attempting to suggest areas where improvement might be useful. (Alternatively many social scientists might instead become involved at a more local level: e.g. as social justice professionals.) Unfortunately, New Zealand social researchers seem seldom to

theorise their own society or even make very explicit the context within which they are studying whatever aspects of it have attracted their interest. This is related to a sociological tradition I have (long ago: indeed: the subject of my own first conference paper, albeit cruelly rejected in subsequent attempts to publish) suggested was involved with providing societal interpretations attempts to pull together material on its own society: Porter on Canada, Dahrendorf on Germany, Williams and other on USA, Encel on Australia, and so forth. (An immediately related genre are societal collections which assemble key readings either excerpted from other texts or collected together from journal articles.) A related genre is the more sophisticated of travel/tourism guides to NZ where several social scientists have played their hand: Johnston, Winks, and most famously Austin Mitchells Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise. Social criticism and investigative journalism are limited in NZ, and seldom are systematic but rather investigate particular scandals and similar events. An unusual exception is Nicky Hagar whose analysis of leaked e-mails revealed the intimate workings of NZs Opposition leader in 2005-2006. A major constraint on investigative journalism in NZ is the very limited media outlets and oligopolical control over these and the very limited economics to support sales which arise from a country with only 4 million people. A central thread in the intellectual lives of many countries is the play for the interpretation of its history: not just its periodisation but the depiction of its central features. This is country-specific general history. Every generation seems to produce its own major historian (or historians: although very often the very limited attention space of the public seems limited to just one who is lionised and whose work appears to be influential: studies would be needed to prove this. (Alongside individuallyauthored general histories lie collective works - e.g. Oxford History of NZ or Encyclopaedia of NZ online.) There seems to be a ratchet effect with successive histories reworking much the same lode of material but adding-in (as best they can) additional detailed material (since the volume of historical material constantly grows making the writing of general histories a difficult task). In addition, the reigning general historian of the day sometimes (very occasionally) gets to play a spokesperson role articulating a broader social science perspective (e.g. James Belich has been asked to address a national conference on internet issues). NZ lacks a chief social scientist (as in the UK) or any other spokesperson for the social science community, although there have been infrastructure leaders who have mainly operated behind the scenes. There has been a Chief Historian, although that role has been quite depoliticised. These summative general histories are undoubtedly highly valuable but problematic in their usefulness for sociological analysts. They are problematic in two particular respects because they are backward looking they are weighed down reasonably equal coverage of the various periods and with tracing chains of causality from earlier times but seldom make their view clear through explicit hypotheses. (Humanistically orientated historians are hypothesis formulation averse: e.g. before writing the currently orthodox account, Jamie Belich gave a public lecture in which he tentatively suggested he might develop some models which was greeted with concern by some of

the historians in the audience.) Societal interpretations, rather, face the future in conjunction with an analysis of the recent past. It is not always clear what writing is inside and what outside the societal interpretation canon. For example, there are minor contributions of interesting material from geographers dealing with environment and regionalisation, and by other social scientists and writers describing and assessing the countrys demographic structures, attitude structures and institutional arrangements. As usual it is the historians who provide appropriate commentary: most recently Fairburn (2008). (Earlier, Fairburn had advanced the view that early NZ society was very mobile, rather than the steadily-settled parochial backwater many had assumed.) His more recent conclusion is worth quoting as summing up an array of writing: The upsurge in cultural nationalism in New Zealand has failed to produce a good case that New Zealand is an exceptional society. The reason for this is that New Zealand has not had a chance to develop a culture that is autochthonous in significant respects. New Zealand's domination by the cultures of Britain, Australia and America in the 19th and 20th centuries prevented its history from taking a significantly different path. The lack of autochthony is attributed to the structural effects of physical isolation. Remoteness made its human history unusually short, led it to be exceptionally exposed to the global revolution in transport and communication from the mid-19th century, and severely constrained its population size. Short thumb-nail sketches of the key contributions to successive NZ societal interpretations are now given: - Pember Reeves articulated the significance of the welfare state developments of the Liberal government: indeed, correctly as this foretold the institutional structure of NZ for the next half-century or more. - Somerset provided an understanding of NZ communities refracted through a community level study. (Interestingly, this was followed by several studies of Maori communities). - Doig was unpopular for exposing statistics on inequality in NZ - Sutch (with his quasi-Marxist background) thundered about NZs economic dependency and the closedness of our institutions. - As an American Ausubel raised local hackles with his trenchant criticism of NZs small town limitations and smug racism and classism. - Robert Chapman (UoA politics prof.) developed some of the key ideas re NZ society interpretation, especially concerning distance and size and was the link with the literary renaissance of the time. - Franklin endeavoured to bridge the analysis of NZs demography, economy, social structure and culture, all the while setting this within a framework covering the way NZ interacted with o/s. - Bedggood has provided a rather-wooden Marxist analysis of NZ society and the deficiencies of our welfare state. - Armstong/McGee (later McMichael) settler capitalism/colonialism framework - In the 1980s there was a broad movement to consider Pakeha as opposed to Maori culture (particularly developed by historian Michael King); - Easton has produced a steady stream of (social) economically-driven comment on NZs economic situation and the consequences of this for other aspects of our society.

- Collective of geography (a more tribal discipline and one better connected to secondary school teaching) has produced a couple of excellent reviews of changes across NZ. - Gould (a former NZ ViceChancellor and before that a leading UK Labour party politician) is the most recent writer to articulate concerns about NZs economy. Sometimes the characteristics of NZ are approached through discussion of national identity, but this tends to remain at a social psychological level. At various times in NZ a social scientist has confronted the key issues involved in an analysis of NZ society and its future options: sociology in prophetic mode. There has been an historical (master) tradition of a succession of widely read books: and alongside these a more dissenting and vigorous alternative tradition. Existing publications on NZ Intellectual life fail to really understand this indigenous organic intellectual life and see intellectual work as largely confined to the importation of foreign ideas into a NZ context. And local sociologists seldom see the bigger picture of NZ society at the larger scale.

(6) Effects of political/economic cycles Is it is difficult to detect the effect on university social science of the various politicaleconomic cycles NZ has been through. Perhaps Burawoys analysis needs to be redressed with analysis of the relationship between social science and (counter-) movements of welfare state development to which the marketisation phases are to some degree counterweights. (Lets accentuate the positive.) Broadly the sociological component of social science is most likely to develop during (or more precisely, coming out of depression phases), and also on the left-wing swings of political cycles. Although academic sociology has broadly remained in a similar mode of operation over the last 40 years, there have been some minor changes: both structural and cyclical. Whereas research funding support has gradually built up over the postWW2 period, with only very sporadic funding up until the 1970s when a moderate supply of small research grants became available and from the 1990s the last 15 or so years has witnessed some major funding support, which has been quite steady and slowly rising as a proportion of the total budget. Social Science has quietly and steadily gained access to other institutional frameworks in NZ. To some extent this is part of a general trajectory of increasing science (and social science) spending in NZ, but it also is partly propelled by political cycles. The present funding regime sprang from a neo-liberal Disaggregation of science/research funding which disembodied it from teaching activities but also made government research organisations more competitive. Funding increases have been steady, and moir elite scientific work encouraged through funding of specialist research centres of excellence. However, funding has been established within a broadly applied or innovation system framework which has harnessed it to societal goals, and indeed had substantial reworking of the range of specialisation which is supported. While social science has done well with these shifts it has not catapulted in to a position of prominence (see Crothers, 2008).

The imposition of a RAE-type individual audit framework on individual staff was clearly part of a neo-liberal frame: perhaps the last grasp of this movement in NZ (University opposition had long delayed adding it to the repertoire of neo-liberal models). One partially unintended consequence has been that we now have excellent measures of social science (and other academic research output) activity. Although the academic sector of social science has been only partially affected by funding and other trends, more direct government support for research both in-house and through contracts has changed markedly over time. During the heyday of neoliberalism research activity plummeted and in-house capacities were allowed to decay (with loss of institutional memory). this was because of a contempt for longer term research and an unconcern for even learning what the outcomes on the ground had been. Rather, programs were theory-driven (based on neoliberal economics approaches) and overseas (especially American) studies were drawn on without any concern about whether they fitted with local specificities let alone research into such questions. Policy design was accomplished with a rapid tempo and was put together by small groups of officials behind closed doors. Such research which was favoured was carried out by (expensive) business consultants or by visiting (usually American) experts. A proscription against subject-matter specialists working as policy advisors in appropriate Ministries was suggested as a guard against provide capture. This brings us to the present conjuncture, with the world economic recession being accompanied in NZ by the advent of a centre-right government. Already there are signs in the wind that government-sponsored social research may be for the chop. (SParc has been criticised for unnecessary social research, social advertising for Buy NZ cut and housing developments stripped of their more progressive social housing aspects.) Yet, capitalism is swathed in market research (which is likely to increase as capitalists panic) and surely investment in both development and evaluation knowledge to unearth best practise and to see what works is good business practise. Some very useful NZ scholarship worked at unpacking the Rogernomics model (esp. Boston). More recently there has been a minor industry in Rogernomics critique with at least 3 book-length studies (as well as other historical and biographical material): Morris, Roper, MU Albanys Grant Duncan. The more recent period has received less attention with only a few very limited attempts and very recent attempts to interpret the very recent Clark government 9-year stretch: Grant Duncan and also Neil Lunt (7) Link to unique status of NZ as a semiperiphery (and model) country In terms of types of society NZ is usually seen as developed, part of the OECD grouping, Western, Christian, Anglo-American, and there is also some theorising around the notion of a settler colonial society. There has been little discussion of the extent to which NZ fits in with a Wallerstein world systems analysis perspective although it seems clear that we are a small, distant and backwards-sliding member of the OECD club and thus generally speaking in the semi-periphery. Given our small size and shared culture it can make sense for NZ to be seen as the equivalent of a State within an Australasian context. But what does this imply for our sociological/social science research efforts?

We seem to have made very little of our Australian link, partly because of some historical difficulties. Although there are some links (recent joint conference, loads of Australian keynote speakers and programme examiners/moderators, take-up of NZ PG students and some staff migrations) these do not seem to have been parlayed into anything of significance. EG there is a large lacunae in the exchange of sociological books. I think, too, there is an incredible one-way wall in the relationship as with the links between Canada and its much larger neighbour the traffic is all one-way. i.e.: They ignore us, we take some interest in them and we do the 'colonial cringe' by often inviting to officiate at key occasions... This is a pity as for many decades ANZ were part of the same framework. As might be expected NZ takes some academic interest in those areas of the Pacific that fall under its general sway (esp. southern Polynesia & Melanesia) although far less so than either anthropology or geography (or even history). Nor have attempts been made to develop any indigenous frameworks relevant to our regional context, apart from a small burst of interest in the concept of settler capitalism in the 1970s. (8) Indigenisation Perhaps one-third of NZ sociology positions over time have been filled by ex-pats: c15 out of 50-60 at present. Half of these were appointed at professorial level and most have stayed for a long term, although some were shorter-term sojourners. The main source was UK, followed by USA, Canada as a distant third and with Australia hardly to be glimpsed. Almost all ex-pats indigenised to a considerable extent, usually focusing their ongoing research on NZ topics, although some retained overseas links and topic interests. To some extent sources of recruitment In return, NZ has supplied a bunch of staff to overseas universities: esp. in Australia. There are very few returnees (see Crothers, 2008e). Then there are intermediaries who have not just acquired. advanced degrees overseas and/or kept up strong links with o/s colleagues, although amasingly few fall into this category. The importation of all this talent did little more than provide a personalised transmission of tendencies already conveyed by other channels. Perhaps the strongest influence was that of Barry Smart who provided a high profile pomo viewpoint which infected some of his more immediate colleagues - to an unfortunate extent. Another concern is the limited recruitment of Maori to the ranks of NZ sociology departments: only 3-4 amongst 50-60. In part Maori social scientists have been attracted by Maori studies as an alternative disciplinary framework. Finally, what has NZ contributed ore directly to the world stock of social science knowledge: very little as few NZ sociologists seem to be that ambitious (or perhaps that talented). (9) Public Involvement With Social Science In this section I make some attempt to assess the extent to which the delivery of NZ social science approximates the concerns of the people (about the present and about

the future). There are immense difficulties involved in carrying out this exercise, not just in establishing what the publics concerns are (e.g. the split between country-level and personal-level concerns, and variability over time) let alone how these might best be translated into appropriate social science. Although Ganss argument suggests we respect the publics views about a sociology agenda, surely a deeper analysis can be provided by embedding science agendasetting within a sociological framework (given that sociologists ought to be able to provide wider perspectives...) Two potential candidates would be (1) demographic: attention to particular groupings in rough proportion to their share of the population (2) social change: attention in proportion to their extent of change. Some of the issues of public concern are the subject of whole disciplines or studies and presumably well-covered as a result: health, education, economy, welfare, justice/criminology, Maori, politics, migration. other topics though are more specific: e.g. unemployment, privatisation, wages, rights, political and/or social discontents, tax and it is less clear what research has been carried out in these areas. To examine these issues I have examined those articles on NZ cited in the SSCI for each of these terms and this showed some degree of coverage.
NZES Data (2006) A9 Most Important Issue for Country Major Categories

A12 Personal Issue Major Categories

HEALTH EDUCATION ECONOMY WELFARE LAWORDER MAORI TAX POL DISCONENT SOCIAL DISCONENT UNEMPLOY RIGHTS SUPERANUATN IMMIGRATION WAGES ENVIRONMENT DEFENCE TRANSPORT PRIVATISATION

% 16.8% 8.2% 10.9% 4.1% 6.8% 19.1% 11.1% 2.2% 4.3% 4.0% .9% .3% 4.4% 1.1% 2.4% 1.6% 1.3% .6%

% 9.7% 13.8% 4.7% 6.6% 2.6% 7.6% 30.4% 7.7% 5.4% 1.2% 1.2% 3.1% 1.4% .9% 2.7% .5% .5% .1%

UMR survey ten years time

Interestingly, there is not much indication about where NZers see the difficulties of the future falling: the environment, health system and transport draw some pessimism. (9) Role of Sociology within the Array of the Social Sciences. Burawoy has suggested that there is a tri-fold division within the social sciences and (as it happens) the NZ development exhibits this well. The Social Sciences in NZ developed within a very British discipline matrix. However, at present, within the sociology segment there is a broad alliance of sociologists, human geographers and sociologists together with some social psychologists and social economists whose work (baring slightly vocabulary differences essentially springs from a common framework and which deploys a fairly common array of theory/theorists and methods. This has become (temporarily?) institutionalised within the BRCSS (Building Research Capability in the Social Sciences: see http://www.brcss.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1) framework which has yet to attract sufficient attention from political scientists, economists and psychologists. This bloc within social science has also (somehow) wielded its power to restrict the funding research agenda to essentially sociological topics. For example, institutional developments in NZ politics flowing from our MMP are no longer being systematically evaluated as the agenda of the main funding agency precludes this. But within this segment it is not clear that Sociology is playing the lead role it ought, and it has been content to merge itself within the wider sociology frame (and to some considerable extent to be colonised by members of other disciplines). And yet it is precisely the analytical and methodological strength of sociology that should be providing the framework for all of the segment and then from a more sound base launching intellectual initiatives which confront and link with frames which revolve around the State and the Economy.

(10) Conclusion Social science marches on the stomach (to use Napoleonic terminology) of its professional academic work, which provides the platform on which other sociological enterprises can carry out their requisite work. But there are quite different ways of

producing scientific sociology and what goes on within this quadrant of the overall sociological machinery matters. In this paper I have explored the way in which an interstitial mode of sociology: societal interpretation grounded in political economy articulating and critiquing models of society has developed in the NZ context, and how hopefully it can be made to develop better in the future. Societal Interpretation provides a framework for the development of sociology (and other social sciences) within a national context and provides the framework on which a (value-added) national sociology (which can reach out to include study of how NZ is incorporated within a broader global context) is possible. Most of NZ social science effort has been resolutely local, although some NZers have contributed to international scholarship (often involving a move overseas). There have been two periods when NZ has been widely recognised on a world scale as a model society: 1 Around the turn of the 19th century early NZ welfare state impact 2 the 1980s/90s neo-liberalism =(3rd cycle marketisation) when NZ forged ahead with incredible pace. It is possible that the current instance has been another period of possible international interest although so far that remains latent. But NZ social scientists have not particularly seized on these opportunities wrought by wider social trends and the harvest has more been reaped by overseas observers and writers.

References: Baldock, Cora and Jim Lally (1974) Sociology in Australia and NZ: theory and methods Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Baldock, Cora (1975) Australian and New Zealand Sociology in Handbook of Contemporary Developments In World Sociology edited by Raj P. Mohan and Don Martindale. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Baldock, Cora (1994) Australian and New Zealand Sociology in International Handbook Of Contemporary Developments In Sociology edited by Raj P. Mohan & Arthur S. Wilke. Westport, Conn.: Greenwod Press. Britton, S. G., R. Le Heron, et al., Eds. (1992). Changing places in New Zealand: a geography of restructuring. Miscellaneous series / New Zealand Geographical Society, Special Publications, no. 10. Christchurch, New Zealand Geographical Society. Brown, R., Ed. (2005). Great New Zealand argument: ideas about ourselves. Auckland, N.Z., Activity Press. Carroll, Penelope; Michael Blewden, Karen Witten (2008) Building Research Capability in the Social Sciences (BRCSS): the social sciences and policyresearch use Auckland: Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation & Te Ropu Whariki, Massey University Crothers, C (2008a) Conference Paper on Funding of Social Sciences in NZ SAANZ, Dunedin Crothers, Charles (2008b) The State of New Zealand Sociology: an updated profile. New Zealand Sociology, 23(1), p1-27 Crothers, Charles (2008c) Recent (2005-2008) Social Science-Relevant Books on New Zealand: a review essay. New Zealand Sociology, 23(1), 99-112 Crothers, C (2008d) New Zealand Sociology Textbooks Current Sociology 2008 56(2):221-234. Crothers, C (2008e) Ex-Pat NZ Sociologists NZ Sociology Newsletter 3 Crothers, C. (2007)Race and Ethnic Studies in New Zealand Race and Ethnic Studies 30(1): 165-170 Crothers, C. (2006a) Building Capacity in the Social Sciences Auckland: BRCSS: occasional paper 3. 2006, 22pp. Crothers, C. (2006b) History of New Zealand Sociology in John Gemov et al (eds.) History of Australian Sociology Melbourne: Melbourne University Press 67-80. Crothers, C. (2006c) Mapping the Social Sciences by exploring Performance-Based Research Fund data: Characteristics of New Zealand academic Social Sciences research outputs in L. Bakker, J. Boston, L. Campbell & R. Smyth (Eds.). Evaluating the Performance-Based Research Fund: Framing the Debate (pp. 185-209). Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies: Victoria University of Wellington. Crothers, Charles (2004b) American Influences on NZ Sociology MS. Crothers, Charles (1994) "Introduction: Review Symposium of Recent Works on Political Economy" New Zealand Sociology 1994 9(2): 380-390. Crothers, Charles with Chris Gribben (1986) "The State of Sociology in New Zealand: some preliminary observations" New Zealand Sociology 1(1): 1-17. Crothers, Charles and Jim Robb (1985) "New Zealand" in UNESCO Sociology and Social Anthropology in Asia and the Pacific, Wiley, New Delhi:. 460-508. Doig, W. T. (1942). Rich and poor in New Zealand. Christchurch, Christchurch Cooperative Book Society ltd.

Duncan, Grant (2007). Society and Politics: New Zealand Social Policy. 2nd. edition. Auckland: Pearson Education-SprintPrint Prentice Hall. Easton, B. H., Ed. (1989). The Making of Rogernomics. Auckland, N.Z., Auckland University Press. Easton, B. H. and L. Hocken (1996). Towards a political economy of New Zealand. Dunedin, N.Z., Hocken Library. Easton, B. H. (1997). The commercialisation of New Zealand. Auckland, N.Z., Auckland University Press. Easton, B. H. (1997). In stormy seas: the post-war New Zealand economy. Dunedin, N.Z., University of Otago Press. Easton, B. H. (1999). The whimpering of the state: policy after MMP. Auckland, N.Z., Auckland University Press. Easton, B. H. (2001). The nationbuilders. Auckland, N.Z., Auckland University Press. Easton, B. H. (2007). Globalisation and the wealth of nations. Auckland, N.Z., Auckland University Press. Fairburn, Miles (2008) Is There a Good Case for New Zealand Exceptionalism? Thesis Eleven 92: 29-49. Franklin, S. H. (1985) Cul de sac: the question of New Zealand's future. Sydney Vic. Wellington, N.Z. Franklin, S. H. (1978). Trade, growth, and anxiety: New Zealand beyond the welfare state. Wellington, Methuen New Zealand. Gould, Bryan (2006) The democracy sham: how globalisation devalues your vote. Nelson, N.Z. : Craig Potton Pub. Hamer, David (ed.) (1974).The Webbs in New Zealand, 1898: Beatrice Webb's diary with entries by Sidney Webb 2d ed. Wellington: Price Milburn for Victoria University Press. Jesson, B. (1987). Behind the mirror glass: the growth of wealth and power in New Zealand in the eighties. Auckland, N.Z., Penguin. Jesson, B. (1989). Fragments of Labour: the story behind the Labour government. Auckland, N.Z., Penguin. Jesson, B. (1999). Only their purpose is mad. Palmerston North, N.Z., Dunmore Press. Jesson, B. and A. Sharp, Eds. (2005). To build a nation: collected writings 1975-1999. Auckland, N.Z., Penguin. Kelsey, Jane (2002) At the crossroads : three essays. Wellington, N.Z. : Bridget Williams Books, 2002. Kelsey, Jane (1995) Economic fundamentalism. London: Pluto Press. Kelsey, Jane (2003) Free trade at any price? : the World Trade Organisation Doha Round Christchurch, N.Z.: ARENA, 2003. Kelsey, Jane (2002) International economic regulation Burlington, VT : Ashgate. Kelsey, Jane (1997) The New Zealand experiment: a world model for structural adjustment? Auckland, N.Z.: Auckland University Press: Bridget Williams Books Kelsey, Jane (1999) Reclaiming the future: New Zealand and the global economy Wellington, N.Z.: Bridget Williams Books. Kelsey, Jane. 1993 Rolling back the State: privatisation of power in Aotearoa/New Zealand Wellington, N.Z.: Bridget Williams Books. Kelsey, Jane. 1995. Setting the record straight: social development in Aotearoa/New Zealand Wellington, N.Z.: Association of Non Government Organisations of Aotearoa

Le Heron, R., E. Pawson, et al., Eds. (1996). Changing places: New Zealand in the nineties. Auckland, Longman Paul. Lunt N. (2009) The rise of a social development agenda in New Zealand Int J Soc Welfare 18: 312 Peters, Michael (ed.) (1997) Cultural politics and the university in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Palmerston North, N.Z.: Dunmore Press. Pope, James H. (1887) The State: the rudiments of New Zealand sociology for the use of beginners. Wellington: G. Didsbury, Govt. Printer. Reeves, W. P. and A. J. Harrop (1973). The long white cloud: Aotearoa. Auckland, Golden Press in association with Whitcombe and Tombs. Robb, J H (1987) The Life and Death of Official Social Research in New Zealand VUW, Sociology working paper 7. Robson, J. L., J. J. Shallcrass, et al., Eds. (1975). Spirit of an age: New Zealand in the seventies: essays in honour of W.B. Sutch. Wellington, Reed. Ross, J., L. Gill, et al., Eds. (1993). Writing a new country: a collection of essays presented to E.H. McCormick in his 88th year. Auckland, N.Z., J. Ross. Somerset, H. C. D. (1938, 1974) Littledene: patterns of change. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Spoonley, Paul (2003) Island imaginings: the possibilities of post-colonial sociology in Aotearoa New Zealand Sociology 18: 55-66. Simmons, Laurence (ed.) (2007) Speaking truth to power: public intellectuals rethink New Zealand. Auckland, N.Z.: Auckland University Press. Sinclair, K. (1986). A destiny apart: New Zealand's search for national identity. Wellington, N.Z., Allen & Unwin in association with the Port Nicholson Press. Sinclair, K. and R. Dalziel (2000). A history of New Zealand. Auckland, N.Z., Penguin Books. Sutch, W. B. (1966). The quest for security in New Zealand 1840 to 1966. Wellington, Oxford University Press. Sutch, W. B. (1972). Takeover New Zealand. Wellington, Reed. Sutch, W. B. (1973). Who owns New Zealand? Wellington, N.Z., New Zealand University Press: Price Milburn. Timms, Duncan (1970) "The Teaching of Sociology within NZ in Jerzy Zubrzycki (ed.) The Teaching of Sociology in Australia and NZ. Melbourne: Cheshire Waring, Marilyn (1988) Counting for nothing: what men value & what women are worth Wellington, N.Z.: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press Waring, Marilyn (1989) If women counted: a new feminist economics