GeoJournal 59: 161–166, 2003.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

161

Book Review

Geographies of ‘The New Zealand Experiment’

Nick LewisSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, The University of Auckland, 10 Symondsstreet, Auckland, New Zealand(Tel: 09 3737599 extn 88214; Fax: 093737434; E-mail: n.lewis@auckland.ac.nz)

Critiques of the New Zealand political reforms have beenthe mainstay of New Zealand social science over the lastfifteen years. Indeed, in a curious twist imparted partiallyby reformist efforts to prevent provider capture, academicshave been assigned a statutory responsibility to do just thisas servants of their universities (Boston, 1999). New Zealandgeographers have had little choice but to examine this defin-ing programme of social, political, cultural and economicchange and to contextualise their work in these terms. Thisreview reflects on some of the key texts in which the reformprogramme has been exposed. It focuses in particular onthe contributions of two academics who have informed thepopular debate, Jane Kelsey and Brian Easton. The reviewsuggests that the key collective contributions from geograph-ers, the two ‘Changing Places’ volumes (Britton et al., 1992;Le Heron and Pawson, 1996) add important dimensions tothe literature, but that geographers have failed to match thesetwo authors in challenging the reforms in popular politics.

This special issue confirms the interest of internationalresearchers and policy makers with what Jane Kelsey hasevocatively termed the “New Zealand Experiment”. In manyways, the New Zealand experience is a paradigm case ofneo-liberal political reform, and offers many insights intothe defining socio-political processes of recent times. Itis regarded as remarkable for the purity of its new statemanagerial design, the speed of its implementation, andthe ideological certainty with which it was pursued (Hood,1991; Kelsey, 1995). New Zealand’s institutional and con-stitutional ‘thinness’, small size, isolation and political-economic transparency make it both an ideal site for politicalexperimentation (Mulgan, 1989) and an effective laboratoryfor studying social change (Nagel, 1998). Indeed, inspiredby the politics of Britain’s ‘New Labour’, the current NewZealand Labour Government has recently and zealously fol-lowed Britain into a new phase of experimentation – the col-laborative governmental moment of the ‘Third Way’ (Larnerand Craig, 2003). Although it would be a mistake to viewthem as stages of an a-priori programme for reform (Larner,1997), the New Zealand reforms have occurred in severaldistinct, albeit overlapping and cumulative phases (Table 1).The publication of key texts in the critical literature hasfollowed these phases, responding to the playing out ofparticular political and governmental projects. Whilst morepartial, specifically directed, and discipline focused papersin academic journals have generated a continuous stream ofcritique composed of multiple currents and counter-currents,

these key collections mark out period specific sets of un-derstandings and programmes of resistance. Table 1 relatesthese volumes to five distinct phases of the reform process.

The initial critique of market liberalisation from polit-ical and other dissenting economists was joined by socialscientists more broadly as the negative impacts of marketliberalisation became apparent, and as the reformists dir-ected their attention to the core state. Educationalists andpolitical studies scholars were among the most vocal criticsin the late 1980s. Critics across the social sciences detailedthe neo-liberal logics of the reforms, particularly when theprogramme was rejuvenated by the election of the con-servative National Party to government in 1990. Its ‘moremarket’ refinements of the core state reforms along withextensive budget cuts presaged the series of cultural, demo-cratic, economic and social deficits that Kelsey (1995) waslater to describe. In Changing Places (Britton et al., 1992),geographers detailed many of the policy changes and theinitial closures, job losses, ownership changes and popula-tion movements arising from the reforms, and linked themto the internationalisation of production. Their work wasnotable in the early 1990s, both because of its empirical andpolitical economy grounding and its deep pessimism. Theliterature more generally struggled with the logics of reformand to keep up with their import. It detailed the reformstaking place, and argued that they were bound to deliverthe ‘deficits’ that the geographers had begun to record. Awide consensus of critical positions was levelled at the neo-conservative redirection of the reforms, which stripped awayany progressive veneer from the earlier liberalism.

Jane Kelsey’s ‘New Zealand Experiment’ was written atthe height of the neo-conservative project, and publishedjust as the experiment began to expire from the poverty ofmarket regulation as a policy framework. The second ofthe two Changing Places volumes published in 1996 (Chan-ging Places: New Zealand in the Nineties) confirmed in itsrich empirical detailing and nuanced narratives the extentof destruction wrought over a ten-year period. The reforms,however, had lost momentum. Changing Places II asked thequestions “where now” and “what might be done” as wellas crying “stop” and “no more” as critical standpoints. In amore distanced critical observation, co-editor Eric Pawsonreflected, for example, on the extensive, grey and invasivepresence of the welfare state and its national imaginary ofhomogeneity, equality, stability, and contentment. He specu-lated that such greyness had produced an existential crisis

162

Table 1.

Phase Discipline Critique Key Texts

Market liberalisationCorporatisation/privatisation

EconomicsPolitical StudiesGeography

Timing MonetarismUnemploymentForeign ownership

Bollard and Buckle (1987)Boston and Holland (1987)Easton (1989)Britton and Le Heron (1992)Kelsey (1993)Roper and Rudd (1993)

Core state reform – newpublic managerialism

Political StudiesSociologyEducation

User paysWelfare effects IdeologyGovernment

Boston et al. (1991)James (1992)Holland and Boston (1990)Olssen and MatthewsSpoonley et al. (1994)

Neo-conservative entrench-ment

GeographyPolitical economyEconomics

Analysis of effectsNeo-conservatism

Kelsey (1995, 1999)Easton (1997)Le Heron et al. (1996)Dalziel & Lattimore (1999)James (1998)

“After neo-liberalism” SociologyGeography?

GovernmentalityKnowledge economyThird Way

from which the cultural vitality associated with reformsoffered some relief. Although still short on alternatives, thecritical literature began to recognise, as the initial generationof critical economists had done (see Bollard and Buckle,1987), that the welfare state was also a governmental ap-paratus and a power-laden imaginary that systematicallyfavoured some groups over others (Larner, 1998), and notnecessarily to be mourned as a first principle of critique.

In the years since, geographers and others have begun tomeasure the impacts of the changes and taken up Le Heronand Pawson’s (1996) challenge to disentangle the effectsof domestic political reforms, projects of globalisation andother sources of structural change. Fiske and Ladd (2000),for example, have made use of their distanced, Americangaze to write of what are effectively the altered geographiesof schooling produced by parental choice. Conradson andPawson (1997), Murphy (2003), Hayward and Le Heron(2002), Le Heron (1993), Kearns and Joseph (2000), Barnett(2000), Kearns et al. (2003), Morrison (1997), Witten etal. (2003), Spoonley et al. (2003), Johnsen (2003), Larner(2001), Lewis (2003), McKenna and Murray (2002), andMorrison and Waldegrave (2002) have written geographiesof change in particular communities, housing, horticulturalreorganisation, agriculture, community health, health ser-vice provision, the reorganisation of taxi services, schoolclosures, citizenship, call centres, international schooling,farmers’ experiences, horticultural industries, and benefi-ciary migration, in what might have been updated chapters ofChanging Places II. More of this heavily truncated scheduleof work is exposed in the various papers in this volume.Understanding the reforms, their impacts and the remak-ing of space is clearly occupying geographers in the currentmoment. The defining social science texts have yet to appear.

Commercialisation of New Zealand

The critical response in the literature and the theme of pop-ular engagement can be traced through the work of twocontinuously engaged critics who have sustained significantpopular and academic critiques. In his fortnightly contribu-tions to the Listener magazine1 of more than 25 years and hisvarious books, economist Brian Easton has sought to providean alternative point of access for the public to the economicdebate at the heart of the rationalisation of the reforms -one that is not mediated by the beneficiaries of the reforms(the ideologues, the financial sector and the wealthy) ortheir gatekeepers (financial economists and business analystsof multiple forms but singular voice). Easton attacks thesegroups variously as philosopher kings, business romantics,religious zealots, and conceited bureaucrats. Writing almostexclusively for the New Zealand reader who can recognisethe characters, the politics and the policies, he sees his workas texts for the congregation of the questioning and the basisfor vigorous debate with the reformists (Easton, 1997b).

Easton’s entry point is economic theory and classicaldebates around public goods, needs, utility, justice and wel-fare. In his Listener commentaries, he analyses politicalissues of the day from this perspective, and his analysisis, as it is in his key popular books on the reforms, policystudies. Easton blends a close examination of electoral andparliamentary politics and policy making with a discussionof the principles, laws and assumptions of competing eco-nomic models. His perspective is drawn from economics andclassical philosophical positions. He disturbs naïve faiths inthe market and interpretations of market economics, and hedebates the appropriate role, level and nature of state inter-vention. Whilst his politics is progressive and his accountsare sprinkled with periodic normative judgements under-written by ideals of social justice, social democracy andexternal moral values and ethical principles, Easton develops

163

an instrumentalist account of change in which ideas drive in-dividual actors, primarily politicians or economists. He usesneither structuralist nor post-structuralist analysis, and doesnot mount a sustained critique of social justice. Instead, heasks how much and what type of state intervention in eco-nomic processes will deliver optimal or preferred outcomes.The approach is pragmatic and conservative.

Easton’s central critique of the reforms is that if theobjectives were to enhance growth, then the policy pre-scription should have been less ideological. He argues thatreform “was more extreme than was necessary or justified”(Easton, 1999). He argues that what occurred was a com-mercialisation of New Zealand, which he distinguishes fromliberalisation as the application of an idealised model ofprivate business to the organisation of economic, social andpolitical activities. The reforms, Easton argues, were ideo-logically motivated, driven and isolated – no opposition wasworth hearing because it would never be acted upon. Ratherthan presenting a possible practical solution to a particularproblem, the commercialisation of New Zealand became anend in itself. For Easton, the pragmatic, modernist democrat,this represented an affront to efficacy, the advancement ofpublic welfare, and the principles and practice of econom-ics. The reforms were introduced too quickly, lacked duedemocratic oversight and process, and implemented with aneye for purity rather than efficacy. The ideologically boundsolutions were in many ways ineffective and were never go-ing to be effective. They served a different purpose (whichEaston reduces to serving the interests of the planners, butdoes not develop) and produced multiple undesirable socialand political externalities.

Writing up the Experiment

Although regularly derided in New Right commentaries, Ea-ston’s work comes with the credibility of the label ‘econom-ics’ and his analysis of the various strains of neo-classicalanalysis is generally more nuanced and scholarly than thosewho dismiss his alternative ideas. He is described as ‘nofool’ and a dedicated chronicler, but as a dissident economistand an unfashionable fighter of old (and lost) battles (Hunt,1997). Legal scholar Jane Kelsey, however, has no suchcredibility in economics. Instead, her work is regularly dis-missed by the business media as paranoid polemic, socialistpropaganda and academic malpractice (Carr 8/12/95), andher views caricatured as vulgar (Carr 06/03/98). Kelsey, atireless critic of the reforms and reformists in the publicsphere, is indeed direct and brutal in her critique. Her entrypoint is social justice and the impact of policy regimes onpeople rather than the realm of ideas, which is also her meas-ure of the failure of the reforms – in terms of their rationality,their structural forms and their outcomes.

Kelsey’s domain is that of real regulation (see Clark,1992). Her accounts are of policies, policy making, legis-lation and its implementation. Like Easton, she identifiesthe political project of the New Right as the driver of thereforms, but she makes these figures and their power thetarget of her critique rather than neo-classical economics

and its high priests. Obviously, she sees this project as ac-tivated in the neo-classical economics of the Treasury, andinformed, empowered and legitimated by the neo-liberalismhighlighted in the richer theoretical accounts of other crit-ics (Larner, 1997, 1998; Peters, 1992, 1993; Dale, 1994;Lewis and Moran, 1998; Neilson, 1998). However, shefocuses attention on political actors, policy and legislationand the political, bureaucratic, legislative and judicial meansby which reform was achieved and secured. Kelsey’s majorworks were published in 1993, 1995 and 1999. Each coin-cides with a significant moment in Table 1 and makes a keycontribution to the debates.

The Rolling Back of the State (Kelsey, 1993) remainsperhaps the most exhaustive laying out of the process ofreform across a range of spheres - its juridical instruments,the involvement of the reformists, and their specific interests,strategies and more specific tactics. Angry, aggressive anddescriptive, it details the charges and presents the evidenceof sustained and programmatic reform. Led by a cabal ofpowerful figures and ideologues acting in their own materialand ideological interests, Kelsey accuses the programme ofbeing anti-democratic in design, execution and substance.Drawing on her legal background, she uses the legislativeprocess as a way in and as a basis for examining the interplayof ideology and agency – who was on what committee, howthey were selected, what the terms of reference were, howthey were set and by whom, what particular motivations andinterests underlay the actions of each of the individuals in-volved, and how these were related to the overall project.She examines the legal framework of the reform processand the legal architecture of the new state and produces anexemplar of real regulation. It is a swingeing, yet highlyinformed, counter-attack on the reformists, and its exhaust-ing outpouring of facts and events reflect the frenetic driveto reform. Although lacking theoretical discipline, the bookis a wonderful documentation of the how of reform and anencyclopaedia of the people, actions, networks and eventsthat constituted it.

The New Zealand Experiment, Kelsey’s most influentialwork, steps back from, refines and in many ways popularisesthese observations in an effort to contextualise both projectand events in terms of place and time. She fashions an in-fluential political argument. Its detail, popular accessibilityand international recognition made Kelsey a prime targetof the business press. Kelsey draws on the growing literat-ure on the nature of neo-liberalism and its relationship tothe New Right. The reforms remain understood as a NewRight project, but Kelsey conceptualises the working out ofthis project in terms of its strategy (‘capturing the politicalmachine’, ‘empowering the technocrats’ and ‘embeddingthe new regime’) and its governmental rationality (‘tradeliberalisation’, ‘limiting the state’, ‘monetary policy’, ‘la-bour market deregulation’ and ‘fiscal restraint’). She labelsthis mix of neo-classical economic and neo-liberal politicalpolicies the ‘substance’ of the experiment. She goes on tointerpret the revealed effects of the reforms to date, or atleast the changes apparent in the social, political, economicand cultural landscapes of New Zealand, as a series of defi-

164

cits. Kelsey’s argument throughout is that the changes werea project – neither necessary nor inevitable, and designedto become irreversible through carefully constructed legal,technocratic and economic policy ‘lock-ins’. She arguesinstead that there were, and there remain, alternatives.

Unlike Easton or the Changing Places volumes, Kelsey’sagenda is international as well as domestic. She regards theNew Zealand Experiment as a warning for others, particu-larly Canadians, and publishes in its appendix a “Manual forCounter Technopols”. The book formed the basis for an in-ternational speaking tour designed explicitly in opposition tothe international tours of the reformist former Finance Min-isters Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas, and elevated herinto the group of celebrated international anti-globalisationagitators. Her more recent work on globalisation, and theGeneral Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) in particu-lar, continues her internationalism. It also provides a terrainin which her legal training becomes a powerful instrumentfor resistance. In the barren and calculatedly depoliticised(or at least juridified) legalscapes of GATS and the WTO,her readings of the finer points of process, protocols, obliga-tions, and responsibilities adds a real regulatory purchase topolitical economy critiques of the new, more insidious glob-alisations promised by GATS. Kelsey offers a clear accountof GATS as real politik, to complement its interpretationas an expression of free trade ideology or the inevitableinternationalisation of economic flows.

Kelsey’s various accounts, however, lack the theoreticalframework that might allow us to tease apart the impact ofdifferent governmental and political-economic processes soas to make a more nuanced sense of the empirical materialthat she catalogues, and to assess properly the impact ofpolitical reform in this. Without such conceptual founda-tions, it is difficult to be confident in her assertions aboutboth cause and extent in the deficits she identifies in theNew Zealand Experiment. Such a theoretical frameworkmight help to overcome the apparent idealisation of socialdemocracy in the binary she constructs of pre and post-reform New Zealand, and also expose her social democraticadvocacy to more reasoned critique. Despite her routinecaveats about the weaknesses of the welfare state and vaguereferences to a utopian, non-national participatory demo-cracy (Kelsey, 2002), this binary provides an easy targetfor her opponents and obstructs a more historically nuancedinterpretation of the reforms. It marginalises other histor-ical processes and projects that have been co-constitutive ofthe grand narrative of neo-liberal reform and the New Rightproject. Here, immigration, the repoliticisation and renegoti-ation of Maori claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, and therestructuring of New Zealand’s economy are key processes.

Geographical Imaginaries

In this respect, geography’s Changing Places volumes aremore convincing. They lay bare theoretically and empiric-ally the mutual constitution of economic restructuring andpolitical reform and describe the impacts in a set of con-cerns with people, place and people in place that is unique

in the literature. They do so by bringing together multiplyscaled case studies from more than 75 authors across thetwo books, producing a jumble of voices in which those ofthe researcher and the researched are mixed. This gives animmediate impression of the pervasiveness and confusionof the reforms and their troubling and human dimensions.Despite the weaknesses of the geographical restructuringmodel theoretically and the lack of cohesion in the work,with which the second volume wrestled (largely manfully),they sit alongside Kelsey’s 1993 work as a trove of inform-ation, and go further than any other collection to expose theimpacts of the changes on people and in places. Indeed thetiming of the first volume complements The Rolling Back ofthe State. It is, as Brian Easton wrote of it in the Listener“blessed with 61 short case studies of . . . [activities, peopleand places]. . . to which economists would not deign to go”(Easton, 1993). This review confirms the links betweenhis project and geography indicated in his real regulatoryapproach and his sectoral analysis which shifts across thesectors where geographers have interests – health, educa-tion, transport, agriculture, science management and so on.In the same way, Kelsey’s real regulatory approach sitscomfortably with geographers. Her work details the how ofreform and alerts geographers to the particular contests andlegal foundations of many of the changes discussed in theirgeographies.

There is no geography equivalent of Brian Easton or JaneKelsey, working unapologetically with the stuff and ways ofgeography to intellectualise political debate. I want to maketwo points in this regard. The first is that geographers havebeen less successful in writing the geographer’s perspect-ive into the popular imagination. Indeed, they have, in theterms of Easton’s faintly damming praise of their “sweetlittle” studies, “dirty boots”, skill with illustrations, andinelegant theories, allowed their unique contribution to bemisinterpreted as somehow less refined, serious or theoret-ically informed. The public face of the geographer remainsquaint and locked in the classroom – a view from the gum-boot and, if either fashion guru Wayne Hemmingway ordisciplinary worriers such as Amin and Thrift (2000) arecorrect, the corduroys and the anorak. Just as their inter-national counterparts have done, New Zealand geographershave meekly ceded to business writers, journalists, advert-ising agencies and miscellaneous other chroniclers of thepresent, the rights to discourses about which they are themost able commentators – globalisation, local-global, im-migration, industrial restructuring, regional development.This failure has stripped geography of the resources that mayhave underwritten a significant political relevance. This isnot to say that New Zealand geographers have not engagedpolitically. Exploiting its wide acceptance as a domain ofgeographical expertise, the Population Studies Centre at theUniversity of Waikato, for example, has been a prominentvoice on immigration, migration, demographics, urbanisa-tion and community. Phil McDermott and Doug Fairgrayhave been among New Zealand’s most influential policy ana-lysts in their work beyond the academy, whilst geographersat the University of Otago have been significant critics of

165

environmental and resource management policy and PhilipMorrison’s work on geographies of labour markets, em-ployment and work has exerted a policy influence. None,however, has captured the popular ear and imagination likeKelsey or Easton.

The second is that geographers have yet to map thealtered lives of people. The Changing Places volumes drewnumerous maps of closures and relocations, and their editorsread out of, and into, these cases a particular, globalisingspatial logic (the geographical restructuring model). Simil-arly, Russell Kirkpatrick (1999) has mapped the reorganisedplaces and spaces of New Zealand in novel ways, whilstLewis and Moran (1998) identify a spatial model of controlunderlying the reforms. However, geographers have gener-ally left implicit the spatial rationality of reform and havenot directly attacked the metaphor of the level playing fieldand the entire spatial edifice of equal opportunity whichit supports. With notable exceptions such as Memon andGleeson (1995), they have not yet taken up the challengeof a sustained policy critique – a political geography of neo-liberalism or after neo-liberalism in New Zealand that bringstogether the many policy reflections on the environment,health, transport, agricultural regulation, regional develop-ment and so on. Alternatively, they have yet to track themultiple altered geographies of ordinary lives across timeand places to map the complex contours of the playing field.The challenge is to restore disciplinary relevance in a timein which our lives are less obviously scaled by community,town, province and nation (be it by qualification for rugbyteams, cultural identity, electorate, hospital bed, or funeralplot). This current volume marks an important next step inthe critical literature on New Zealand’s restructuring jour-ney. Not only is it the first collection of its type with thenecessary temporal distance to reflect on the material im-pacts of the reforms as a medium-term project, but it is alsothe first published in the current Third Way phase. Hope-fully, it has responded to the responsibilities inherent in itstiming, and will inspire an outspoken geographer to respondin public.

Notes

1. New Zealand’s longest standing, most widely disseminated, and, attimes, only high-brow general circulation magazine.

References

Barnett R., 2000: Rationalising hospital services: reflections on hospitalrestructuring and its impacts in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer56(1) 5–17.

Bollard A. and Buckle R., 1987: (eds) Economic Liberalisation in NewZealand. Allen and Unwin, Wellington.

Boston J., 1999: Critical Perspectives on Cultural and Policy Studies inEducation. Access 18(2): 51–84.

Boston J. and Holland M. (eds), 1987: The Fourth Labour Government:Radical Politics in New Zealand. Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Boston J., Martin J., Pallot J. and Walsh P. (eds), 1991: Reshaping theState: New Zealand’s Bureaucratic Revolution. Oxford University Press,Auckland.

Britton S., Le Heron R. and Pawson E.; 1992: Changing places in NewZealand: A geography of restructuring. Christchurch, New ZealandGeographical Society.

Carr S., 1995: Paranoid polemic avoids facing the truth of NZ’s experiment.The National Business Review (8/12/95: 29).

Carr S., 1998: Hayek has the answer for every left-wing vulgarian. TheNational Business Review (6/3/98:2).

Conradson D. and Pawson E., 1997: Reworking the geography of the longboom: The small town experience of restructuring in Reefton, NewZealand. Environment & Planning A 29: 1381–1?.

Dale R. 1994: The State and Education. In: Sharp A. (ed.), Leap Intothe Dark: The Changing Role of the State in New Zealand since 1984.Auckland University Press, Auckland, pp. 68–87.

Dalziel and Lattimore, R., 1999: The New Zealand macroeconomy: A brief-ing on the reforms. (3rd Edition). Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Easton B. (ed.), 1989: The Making of Rogernomics. Auckland UniversityPress, Auckland.

Easton B., 1993: Book Review: Changing places in New Zealand: A geo-graphy of restructuring. New Zealand Geographer 49 (1): 48 (reprintedfrom New Zealand Listener).

Easton B., 1997: The Commercialisation of New Zealand. AucklandUniversity Press, Auckland.

Easton B., 1997b: In stormy seas: the post-war New Zealand economy,University of Otago Press, Dunedin.

Easton B., 1999: The whimpering of the state: policy after MMP. AucklandUniversity Press, Auckland.

Fiske E. and Ladd H., 2000: The tomorrow’s schools reforms: an Amer-ican perspective. Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University ofWellington, Wellington.

Holland M. and Boston J. (eds), 1990: The Fourth Labour Government(2nd Ed.): Politics and Policy in New Zealand. Oxford University Press,Auckland.

Hayward and Le Heron, 2002: Horticultural reform in the European Unionand New Zealand: further developments towards a global fresh fruit andvegetable complex, Australian Geographer 33 (1): 9–27.

Hood C., 1991: A Public Management For All Seasons. Public Administra-tion 69: 3–19.

Hunt G., 1997: Brian Easton fights on but the war is well lost, The NationalBusiness Review 31/10/97; p. 32.

James C., 1992: New territory: the transformation of New Zealand, 1984–92. Bridget Williams Books, Wellington.

James M., 1998: Exploring Civil Society: Essays on David Green’s FromWelfare State to Civil Society. New Zealand Business Roundtable,Wellington.

Johnsen S., 2003: Contingency revealed: New Zealand farmers’ experi-ences of agricultural restructuring, Sociologia Ruralis 43 (2): 128–??

Kearns R. and Joseph A., 2000: Contracting opportunities: interpret-ing post-asylum geographies of mental health care in Auckland, NewZealand. Health Place 6 (3): 159–169.

Kearns R., Barnett R. and Newman D., 2003: Placing private health care:reading Ascot hospital in the landscape of contemporary Auckland.Social Science and Medicine 56: 2303–2315.

Kelsey J., 1993: Rolling Back the State: The Privatisation of Power inAotearoa / New Zealand. Bridget Williams Books, Wellington.

Kelsey J., 1995: The New Zealand Experiment: A world model forstructural adjustment. Bridget Williams Books, Wellington.

Kelsey J., 1999: Reclaiming the future: New Zealand and the globaleconomy. Bridget Williams Books, Wellington.

Kelsey J., 2002: At the crossroads: three essays. Bridget Williams Books,Wellington.

Kirkpatrick R., 1999: Bateman contemporary atlas New Zealand: theshapes of our nation. Bateman, Auckland.

Larner W., 1997: Means to an end: Neoliberalism and state processes inNew Zealand. Studies in Political Economy 52: 7–38.

Larner W., 1998: Sociologies of Neo-liberalism: Theorising the NewZealand Experiment. Sites 36: 5–21.

Larner W., 2001: Governing globalization: the New Zealand call centreattraction initiative, Environment and Planning, 33.

Larner W. and Craig D., 2003: After Neoliberalism: Feminism, Com-munity Activism and Local Partnerships in Aotearoa New Zealand,paper presented to Annual Meeting of the American Association ofGeographers, New Orleans, 5–8 March.

166

Le Heron R., 1993: Globalised Agriculture: Political choice. PergamonPress, Oxford.

Le Heron R. and Pawson E., 1996: Changing Places: New Zealand in thenineties. Longman Paul, Auckland.

Lewis N., 2003: Code of practice for the pastoral care of internationalstudents: making a globalising industry in New Zealand, Globalisation.Societies and Education (forthcoming).

Lewis N. and Moran W., 1998: Restructuring, democracy, and geographyin New Zealand, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy.16: 127–153.

McKenna M. and Murray W., 2002: Jungle law in the orchard: Com-paring globalization in the New Zealand and Chilean apple industries.Economic Geography 78: 495–514.

Memon A. and Gleeson B., 1995: Towards a new planning paradigm?Reflections on New Zealand’s Resource Management Act, Environmentand Planning B: Planning and Design, 22: 109–124.

Morrison P., 1997: Restructuring Effects of Deregulation: the Case of theNew Zealand Taxi Industry. Environment and Planning A 29: 929–941.

Morrison P. and Waldegrave C., 2002: Welfare reform and the intra-regionalmigration of beneficiaries in New Zealand. Geoforum 33 (1): 85–103.

Mulgan R., 1989: Democracy and Power in New Zealand: A study of NewZealand Politics. Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Murphy L., 2003: Reasserting the ‘social’ in social rented housing: polit-ics, housing policy and housing reforms in New Zealand. InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research 27 (1): 90–??.

Nagel J., 1998: Social choice in a pluralitarian democracy: the politicsof market liberalization in New Zealand. British Journal of PoliticalScience 28: 223–269.

Neilson D. 1998: State Autonomy and the Mode of Political Regulation:Neo-liberal Restructuring in New Zealand. Studies in Political Economy5: 45–71.

Peters M., 1992: Starship Education: enterprise culture in New Zealand.Access 11 (1): 1–12.

Peters M., 1993: Postmodernity and Neo-Liberalism: Restructuring Educa-tion in Aotearoa. Delta 47: 46–60.

Roper B. and Rudd C. (eds), 1993: State and Economy in New Zealand.Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Spoonley P., Pearson D. and Shirley I. (eds), 1994: New Zealand Society: ASociological Introduction (2nd Ed.). Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.

Spoonley P., Bedford R. and Macpherson C., 2003: Divided loyaltiesand fractured sovereignty: transnationalism and the nation-state inAotearoa/New Zealand. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 29 (1):27–46.

Witten K., Kearns R., Lewis N., Coster H. and McCreanor T., 2003: Educa-tional restructuring from a community viewpoint: A case study of schoolclosure from Invercargill, New Zealand. Environment and Planning C21: 203–223.