This article examines the theories and practices of neoliberalism across thirteen aspects of ('things you need to know about') neoliberalism. They include the argument that neoliberalism is not reducible to a cogent ideology or a change in economic or social policies, nor is it primarily about a shift in the relationship between the state and the market or between workers and capital in general, or finance in particular. Instead, neoliberalism is a stage in the development of capitalism underpinned by financialisation. Neoliberalism by its nature is highly diversified in its features, impact and outcomes, reflecting specific combinations of scholarship, ideology, policy and practice. In turn, these are attached to distinctive material cultures giving rise to the (variegated) neoliberalisation of everyday life and, at a further remove, to specific modalities of economic growth, volatility and crisis.Finally, this paper argues that there are alternatives, both within and beyond neoliberalism itself.
King's College London, UKWe found ourselves in a transformed world sometime in the month of March. In half the worls we had eerily empty streets, closed shops and unusually clear skies, with climbing death tolls being reported daily: something unprecedented was unfolding before our eyes.The news about the economy was especially alarming: the COVID-19 pandemic triggered the sharpest and deepest economic contraction in the history of capitalism (see Roubini, 2020). To paraphrase The Communist Manifesto, all that was solid melted into air: 'globalization' went into reverse; long supply chains, that were previously the only 'rational' way to organize production, collapsed and hard borders returned; trade declined drastically; and international travel was severely constrained. In a matter of days, tens of millions of workers became unemployed and millions of businesses lost their employees, customers, suppliers and credit lines. 2 Economists started speculating about unthinkably large contractions of gross domestic product (GDP) in various countries in 2020, and a long line of sectors rushed to the closest government to beg for a bailout. The line often started with the banks, always fastest at everything that matters, followed by railways, airlines, airports, the tourism sector, charities, the entertainment industry and, where they were marketized, universities; all were pushed to the verge of bankruptcy, and this is not to speak of the displaced workers and the (nominally) self-employed, who lost everything in an instant. 3 In the USA, with a highly 'flexible' economy and an even more supple job market, tens of millions of workers were thrown into the scrapheap almost instantaneously, often losing their work-related health insurance at the same time: a catastrophe for themselves and their families and a massive health problem for the collective. This 'first wave' of unemployment was compounded by a second wave, in which mid-level posts (office managers, law clerks, etc.) were culled since they had no production to oversee and no one left to supervise, in a textbook-case Keynesian downward spiral that could be halted only by public policy. Unbelievably long lines of pedestrians and automobiles rapidly formed at food banks across the USA, while homeless people were regimented into sleeping in improvised spaces in car parks in Las Vegas, below hotel towers that, although empty, were too lavish for them: astonishing spectacles of need, suffering and waste in the richest country in the world.The political implications of COVID-19 will continue to unfold for months, perhaps even years. Ideologically, neoliberal proclamations about the imperative of 'fiscal austerity' and the limitations of public policy vanished faster than one could spell 'bankruptcy'. Intransigent Austrians and
The mass movements in June and July 2013 were the largest and most significant protests in Brazil for a generation, and they have shaken up the country’s political system. They expressed a wide range of demands about public service provision and governance, and concerns with corruption. Their social base was broad, starting with students and left-wing activists and including, later, many middle-class protesters and specific categories of workers. The deep and contradictory frustrations expressed by those protests were symptomatic of a social malaise associated with neoliberalism, the power of the right-wing media, the limitations of the federal administrations led by the Workers’ Party (PT), the rapid growth of expectations in a dynamic country, and the atrophy of traditional forms of social representation. This article examines the political dilemmas posed by those movements, and suggests constructive alternatives for the left.
The Programa Bolsa Família (PBF) is one of the largest conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes in the world. CCTs have been described as a ‘magic bullet’ for development, and PBF is widely regarded as an exemplary programme. Examination of its conceptual underpinnings, features, impact and limitations shows that PBF provides substantial income support to the poorest. However, PBF is also self‐limiting and it can offer only limited long‐term gains to the poor. More significant outcomes require the expansion of the scope of PBF and other social programmes towards the universalization and decommodification of social provision in Brazil.
From political economy to economic policy: The neo-developmentalism and the Lula administration. This article critically reviews the design of neo-developmentalist economic policies in Brazil, in the first half of the last decade, and their relationship with the economic policies of the Lula administration after 2006. Paradoxically, the neo-developmentalist policies were implemented jointly with the main (neoliberal) macroeconomic policies which had been introduced earlier. The article reviews the relevant literature, and examines the contradictory nature of this 'inflection' of economic policy. So far, this combination of policies has achieved an unquestionable -though provisional -success, despite the persistence of the structural macroeconomic problems due to the continuity of the neoliberal policies.Keywords: Brazilian macroeconomics; new developmentalism; Lula administration.JEL Classification: B52; N16; O11; O54. INTROduçãONo início do primeiro governo Lula, economistas de diversas orientações teó-ricas fora do mainstream foram surpreendidos por suas políticas macroeconômicas, que mantiveram inalteradas aquelas introduzidas pelo governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)) após a crise do real, em 1999. Essas políticas eram baseadas no paradigma neoliberal e, tipicamente, inspiradas pela abordagem dos mercados * Câmara dos deputados, Brasília.
Procedural (formal, liberal, capitalist or bourgeois) democracy is the political form of neoliberalism, and it dominates political thought and state practice today. This modality of management of class relations is currently in crisis, expressed through the evacuation of politics, the erosion of civil liberties and the emergence of authoritarian governance. This article offers a Marxist critique of neoliberal democracy, concluding that neoliberalism is incompatible with the expansion of democracy into key areas of social life. This is expressed by six paradoxes of democracy. Conversely, the expansion of democracy can provide an effective lever for the abolition of neoliberalism. This approach is promising for three reasons: first, the expansion of democracy is valuable in itself. Second, the contradictions between economic and political democracy illuminate the limitations of contemporary capitalism. Third, struggles about the nature and content of democracy can throw into question the limitations of capitalism as a mode of production.
The main feature of capital accumulation in Brazil during the administrations led by Luís Inácio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party—PT) was the continuity of neoliberalism of two varieties: inclusive (2003–2006) and developmental (2006–2013). The PT’s attachment to neoliberalism was mitigated by the party’s (shifting) commitment to (mild) developmental outcomes, redistribution of income (at the margin), social inclusion (within narrow limits), and democratization of the state (bounded by the 1988 Constitution). Achievements in these areas were further constrained by the inability or unwillingness of the PT to confront the institutionalization of neoliberalism in the fields of economics, politics, ideology, the media, and class relations. The political crisis unfolding in Brazil since 2013 and the imposition of authoritarian neoliberalism after Rousseff’s impeachment can be examined from the perspective of the contradictions in the dominant varieties of neoliberalism under the PT and the limitations of the party’s political ambitions. A principal característica da acumulação de capital no Brasil durante os governos ûiderados por Luís Inácio Lula da Silva e Dilma Rousseff do Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) foi a continuidade do neoliberalismo de duas variedades: inclusiva (2003–2006) e desenvolvimentista (2006–2013). O apego do PT ao neoliberalismo foi mitigado pelo compromisso (inconstante) do partido com resultados de desenvolvimento (moderados), redistribuição de renda (na margem), inclusão social (dentro de limites estreitos) e democratização do estado (limitado pela Constituição de 1988). As realizações nessas áreas foram ainda mais limitadas pela incapacidade ou falta de vontade do PT em enfrentar a institucionalização do neoliberalismo nos campos da economia, política, ideologia, mídia e relações de classe. A crise política que se desenrola no Brasil desde 2013 e a imposição do neoliberalismo autoritário após o impeachment de Dilma podem ser examinadas sob a perspectiva das contradições nas variedades dominantes de neoliberalismo sob o PT e as limitações das ambições políticas do partido.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.