The Facts and Acts of Neoliberalism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Facts and Acts of Neoliberalism Mohsen Adollahi, Ph.D. Assistant professor of political science at Lorestan University, Khorram Abad, Iran [email protected] Abstract Neoliberalism, a current political economic paradigm in 21st century, has been described as an ideological dominant culture in that when neoliberal policies are criticized a common response is that “there is no alternative”. Neoliberalism is largely unused by the public in the United States, but it shows a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal benefit. It is embraced by parties across the political arena, from right to left, in that the interests of wealthy investors and large corporations define social and economic policy. The free market, private enterprise, consumer choice, entrepreneurial initiative, deleterious effects of government regulation, and so on, are main principles of neoliberalism. Although neoliberal economic policy, which serves the interests of the wealthy elite, is good for everyone but neoliberal economic policy has created social and economic inequalities among individuals and nations. The wealth gap of neoliberalism is particularly large for African Americans and Latinos, as long as all other third world countries. Neoliberal economic policies have reproduced these inequalities among nations. These policies have damaged the economic sectors of countries like Brazil and Mexico, whereas local elites and transnational corporations are the main interest groups. Neoliberalism also works as a political system but the citizens remain spectators, diverted from any effective participation in decision making. Neoliberal democracy is a minor issues by parties that basically pursue the same pro-business policies regardless of formal differences and campaign debate. The neoliberalism in capitalist regimes, in the late 1970s, has been subjected to a number of insightful analyses and a growing number of wide-ranging critiques. It is defined by the ascendency of financial over industrial and other forms of capital, increasing indebtedness, public and private, rapidly growing and extreme wealth inequalities, increasing the rate of financial crises and ideological commitment to welfare state and privatization of public goods and benefits. Key words: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism, Democracy, Political Economy, Capitalism, trade 1. Introduction and the facts Neoliberalism is, in the first instance, a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices. The state has to guarantee, for example, the quality and integrity of money. It must also set up those military, defense, police, and legal structures and functions required to secure private property rights and to guarantee, by force if need be, the proper functioning of markets. Furthermore, if markets do not exist in areas such as land, water, education, health care, social security, or environmental pollution, then they must be created, by state action if necessary. But beyond these tasks the state should not venture. State interventions in markets must be kept to a bare minimum because, according to the theory, the state cannot possibly possess enough information to second-guess market signals and because powerful interest groups will inevitably distort and bias state interventions for their own benefit. Deregulation, privatization, and withdrawal of the state from many areas of social provision have been all too common. Almost all states, from those newly minted after the collapse of the Soviet Union to old-style social democracies and welfare states such as New Zealand and Sweden, have embraced, sometimes voluntarily and in other instances in response to coercive pressures, some version of neoliberal theory and adjusted at least some policies and practices accordingly. Post-apartheid South Africa quickly embraced neoliberalism, and even contemporary China, as we shall see, appears to be headed in this direction. Furthermore, the advocates of the neoliberal way now occupy positions of considerable influence in education, in the media, in corporate boardrooms and financial institutions, in key state institutions as treasury departments and the central banks, and also in those international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, that regulate global finance and trade. It has become hegemonic as a mode of discourse and has pervasive effects on ways of thought to the point where it has become incorporated into the common-sense way many of us interpret, live in, and understand the world. (Harvey, 2005: 11-12) Efforts to offer a comprehensive definition of neoliberalism are frustrated by different views existing within this philosophical and political camp. Based on a range of common principles that form no more than a smallest common denominator, a diverse group of academics and intellectuals have succeeded in establishing and developing a family of neoliberalism, including the Austrian and Chicago Schools, Ordoliberalismus as well as Libertarianism, some of which have been accommodated in quite diverse political systems and by now inform the positions of both advocates and critics of neoliberalism to a greater or lesser extent. In addition, influential contemporary paradigms that claim to be critical of neoliberalism, e.g. communitarianism, display a certain amount of overlap and compatibility with neoliberal philosophies. (Plehwe et al, 2006:2) It is an ideology which legitimates individual competition and questions collective structures; it is a political project of institutional transformation, against any attempt to institute collectivism and against the types of capitalism, which had resulted from the various social- democratic compromises, in particular, in the post-war period, such as redistributive social protection, workers collective rights or legal protection of employment and economic status; it can also be seen as a ‘form of existence (Dardot and Laval, 2009), as a norm of life characterized by a generalized competition with others, than being defined as the set of discourses, practices, devices which determine a new mode of governance of humans according to the general principle of competition. Neoliberalism is distinct from classical liberalism and above all from the simple laissez faire vulgate which conceives self-regulating markets as a natural reality and consequently regards public intervention as a negative of the market. This vulgate propagates a discourse based on simplistic opposites such as state versus market, constraint versus freedom, closed versus open or flexible versus rigid (Bourdieu and Wacquandt, 2001). Moreover, Neoliberalism is a revival of liberalism. This definition suggests that liberalism, as a political ideology, has been absent from political discussions and policy-making for a period of time, only to emerge in more recent times in a reincarnated form. It suggests, in other words, that liberalism has undergone a process of initial growth, intermediary decline, and finally a recent rejuvenation. Alternatively, neoliberalism might be perceived of as a distinct ideology, descending from, but not identical to liberalism proper. Under this interpretation, neoliberalism would share some historical roots and some of the basic vocabulary with liberalism in general. This interpretation places neoliberalism in the same category as American neo-conservatism, which is an ideology or political persuasion somewhat similar to and yet markedly different from much conventional conservative thought, and often hardly recognizable as a genuinely conservative ideology (Wolfson 2004, Fukuyama 2006). The concept of neoliberalism suggests a particular account of the development of liberal thought. It suggests that liberalism was at one point in time an influential political ideology, but that it at some point lost some of its significance, only to revive itself in more recent times in a new form. As it turns out, however, liberalism has dominated normative political thought as well as practical politics in the West for the past sixty years, up to the point in which it has become a shared inheritance among political theorists, professional politicians, and nearly all significant political movements in its native countries. This is attested by the fact that hardly anyone speaks out against freedom or democracy anymore, which are the primary values of liberalism, as identified in the dictionary definition quoted above. Neoliberalism could therefore scarcely be understood as the recovery of a lost tradition of liberal, political thought. It should, in our view, instead be seen as an ideology different from, and often opposed to, what is more commonly described as liberalism. But Classical liberalism is often associated with the belief that the state ought to be minimal, which means that practically everything except armed forces, law enforcement and other non-excludable goods ought to be left to the free dealings of its citizens, and the organizations they freely choose to establish and take part in. This kind of state is sometimes described as a night-watchman state, as the sole purpose of the minimal state is