Contradiction and Ambivalence

As @MarkJBallard reports

Government departments have been cancelling freelance IT contractors supplied through SMEs and giving their interim staff business to Capita under orders from the Cabinet Office's Efficiency and Reform Group (ERG), in apparent contradiction of government SME policy. (Computer Weekly, 24 June 2011)

When the observed behaviour of a large complex entity seems to contradict its stated goals and policies, we may perhaps infer the existence of some contrary (possibly unstated) goals and policies that override or interfere with the stated ones. This is a classic application of the POSIWID principle.

In this case, however, the Cabinet Office defends the observed behaviour by appealing to a different set of stated goals and policies, relating to cost-cutting. Nevertheless, a representative of one of the affected SMEs suggests that short-term cost-cutting is likely to cost more in the longer-term, as a result of reduced competition.

There are also counter-claims that Capita is merely acting as a gatekeeper, passing on 80% of the business to SMEs, thus possibly contradicting the contradiction.

Thus the interpretation of purpose depends on interpretation of evidence as well as variation in timescale. Applying the POSIWID principle to a politically charged situation like this can often be subject to strong disagreement between stakeholders.

University Top-Up Fees

There is considerable debate in the UK around so-called top-up fees for university tuition.

On the POSIWID principle, one purpose of top-off fees is to split the Labour Party.

Some Labour politicians argue that top-up fees promote social justice, because the better-off students will have to pay more to attend the posher universities. This is therefore a redistributive policy.

Other Labour politicians argue that top-up fees simply make it more difficult for poorer students to attend the better universities, and so this is socially divisive.

As well as indicating internal contradictions in the rhetorical system of "Social Justice", this also reveals an ambiguity or ambivalence in the underlying purpose of the universities themselves, .

1 To provide a mechanism for kids from poorer backgrounds to engage in a little social climbing.

2 To provide a mechanism for better-off families to maintain their social position.

Of course, universities do both of these – but perhaps they used to achieve BOTH of these purposes more effectively than they do now. Lots of Labour politicians benefited personally from this form of social climbing themselves, and feel uncomfortable about kicking the ladder away and preventing others following them. POSIWID is not a simplistic analysis here.