Chapter 2 is dedicated to a discussion of the conditions which enabled the emergence of research evaluation systems. Beyond the general phenomena that characterize modern society, such as rationalization, capitalism, or bureaucratization, there are also other elements that should be included as constitutive conditions for evaluative power. The chapter goes on to provide a systematic account of economization and metricization. It argues that these are the two main forces that shape contemporary academia, having enabled the emergence of research evaluation systems. Economization is defined as promoting the idea that science’s economic inputs and products should be utilized for bolstering the economy, while metricization reduces every aspect of science and social life to metrics. The varied impacts of these two forces are described by means of an expansive account of the social processes, values, logics, and technologies of power that undergird today’s research evaluation systems. This chapter therefore lays the foundations for one of the book’s key claims. This is that metrics should be understood as merely a symptom rather than the cause of the difficulties confronting academia today.

This chapter investigates judicial precedents in China’s instrumentalist legal system and finds that judges are generally reluctant to refer to a judicial precedent, including a guiding case, in the process of making a judicial decision. It further reveals that the guiding case system has effectively crystallized a bureaucratic system of judicial precedents with guiding cases at the top of the pyramid. A bureaucratic system of this kind is grounded primarily in the political hierarchy of the courts and a nationwide typical-case-selection movement, in which the lower courts are politically responsible for submitting a certain number of typical cases selected from within their respective jurisdictions to the Supreme People’s Court every year. Finally, it attempts to develop a bureaucratic theory of judicial precedents centred on guiding cases that fits into China’s authoritarian context and that differs substantially from any other type of case law in a liberal context.

RJ demonstrates how the IRI instrumentalized rural development to consolidate power at home and project influence abroad. This book serves as a corrective and supplement to scholarly works that focus on the IRI’s consolidation and resilience mostly, if not entirely, in terms of repression, particularly in urban areas. Strategically and ideationally, RJ served as a soft-power mechanism that helped the IRI further bring provinces and villages into the political, economic, and sociocultural fold, and expand the state’s footprint in other parts of the Muslim and developing world. RJ’s organizational trajectory mirrored the IRI’s broader evolution during the last four decades. RJ sheds light on four important aspects of the IRI: first, the political and social changes and continuities that have transpired in Iran before the revolution until today; second, the ambiguity and reciprocity of the IRI’s state-society relations, and the agency or ability of its revolutionary activists to not simply follow and support leaders and officials, but also to influence and challenge them; third, the processes and outcomes behind the IRI’s centralization, consolidation, and state-building; and fourth and finally, the merits and shortcomings of the IRI’s bureaucratic institutionalization, and the opportunities and constraints of its associational life.

Chapter 4 “Demobilization and Institutionalization (1983–2001)” deciphers the mezzo or organizational causes and outcomes of RJ’s institutionalization, which reflected the IRI’s macro or broader changes and continuities. As a revolutionary organization, the resource dependency of RJ on IRP officials rendered it vulnerable to their preferences to convert it into a ministry. Reflecting the IRP’s own trajectory, culminating with its dissolution in 1987, the intensified factionalism that existed between leftist and rightist RJ members rendered the organization susceptible to elite designs regarding its bureaucratization, particularly among IRP rightists who were concerned with its increasing radicalization and influence. While some RJ members vehemently opposed the organization’s institutionalization, the outcome precipitated its transition into a rational-legal administration in three ways. First, as a ministry, RJ achieved greater organizational stability and certainty by delineating clearer and predicable hierarchies, careers, and responsibilities. Second, RJ improved its financial transparency and accountability by subjecting its budget to governmental scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. Third and finally, RJ bolstered its internal professionalization and expertise by investing in recruitment, training, and research.

Although the question whether organisation obstructs or supports social movement claims and mobilisation has long been debated, it is undeniable that some level of organisation exists in even the most radically horizontal social movements. Relatively little attention has been paid, however, to how movements operate in dealing with the tensions associated with the question of organisation, that is, how they seek to be effective in decision-making while maintaining or advancing inclusivity and participation. This chapter presents an analysis of the organising efforts of a timebank. With a particular focus on the production of organisation, we illustrate how a group vested on the idea of horizontal, non-hierarchical collective action is dealing with the coordination and decision-making challenges they meet over time.

Although the question whether organisation obstructs or supports social movement claims and mobilisation has long been debated, it is undeniable that some level of organisation exists in even the most radically horizontal social movements. Relatively little attention has been paid, however, to how movements operate in dealing with the tensions associated with the question of organisation, that is, how they seek to be effective in decision-making while maintaining or advancing inclusivity and participation. This chapter presents an analysis of the organising efforts of a timebank. With a particular focus on the production of organisation, we illustrate how a group vested on the idea of horizontal, non-hierarchical collective action is dealing with the coordination and decision-making challenges they meet over time.