Competition in public services requires active state production, not deregulation

Evidence

Competition in education (both amongst institutions and amongst individuals) is not something that spontaneously emerges once state regulation is removed — on the contrary, it is something actively produced by new kinds of state control. The REF and the school inspections regime overseen in the UK by OFSTED are both classic examples of this syndrome. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 1723

Categorization

• DEFINE: Fisher’s syndrome: competition is manufactured by new state control rather than emerging from freed markets — a specific, falsifiable mechanism.
• XREF: connects to: Markets are political projects, not natural outcomes of state removal — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 266; Neoliberalism differs from laissez-faire liberalism by using state intervention to create competition; Market economies require deliberate political construction, not natural emergence — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 364 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Neoliberalism differs from laissez-faire liberalism by using state intervention to create competition #expands (0.85)
• Markets are political projects, not natural outcomes of state removal #corroborates (0.82) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 266
• Market economies require deliberate political construction, not natural emergence #corroborates (0.80) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 364
• The neoliberal state governs for the market, not because of it. #expands (0.80) — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 111
• Neoliberalism makes competition rather than exchange the essence of the market #corroborates (0.78) — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 59
• States make markets as much as markets determine states #corroborates (0.78) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 266