Neoliberalism in geoeconomics: the case of Southeast Europe

Abstract

Th is paper analyzes theoretical and methodological grounds of geoeconomics as the extended arm of geopolitics and post-industrial development paradigm. Th e article selects its basic semantic components, terms and defi nitions, and explains the geoeconomic character of neoliberalism. Th e authors suggest a new term-the neoliberal geo-ideology. Th e infl uence of geoeconomics in the countries of SouthEast Europe (SEE) is demonstrated, and the destructive eff ects of neoliberalism, which serves as the offi cial economic policy in SEE are discussed. Th e conclusion verifi es the starting hypothesis noting the need for abandoning neoliberal economic policies in the SEE countries as such.

Levels and Factors of Transitional Crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia

“…Many authors (Berkowitz et al, 2003;Polterovich, 2012) have pointed to the negative phenomenon of "inappropriate" imported institutions (bad fit). Geopolitical and geo-economic impacts have been explained by Draskovic and Jovovic (2006), as well as Scekic et al (2016). Also, P. Drucker (1999, pp.…”

“…It has had a monistic character (oriented to unlimited and uncontrolled market regulation), and in practice it turned into a quasi-neoliberal (being based on quasi-neoliberal values -Domazet, 2010;Delibasic and Grgurevic, 2013). It was constantly supported by the neoliberal rhetoric (Draskovic and Delibasic, 2014), giving priority to the improvised and monistic institutional choices of the market-type (Scekic et al, 2016), as well as to the privileged individualism (Vukotic, 2004;Draskovic, 2006), which is, according to its dictate, opposite to the logic of social reforms and civilized norms of behavior, because it leads to inequality in the treatment of economic operators, neutralizing the possibilities for improvement of economic and political institutions. Neoliberalism has not accidentally gained in importance in the 1990s, especially in the period 2002-2005(Boas and Gans-Morse, 2009).…”

The Development of Geo-Economics: A Path Towards an Institutional Liberalism Approach

“…Hence, the geo-economic social establishes a relationship between economic policy and changes in the national power and interprets the world through economic indicators, the interconnection of national economies, transnational economic power and their involvement in the global chains of goods and services production (Scekic, Draskovic and Delibasic 2016). Geo-economics, understood as state intervention, is capable of transforming geographical spaces in times of crisis, change and its political consequences within a geographical space and affect the scope of state sovereignty (Mattlin andWigell 2016, Kutz 2017).…”

Government or invisible hand? Who is in charge of retail food prices? Evidence from the Baltics

“…The experts in political economy (Krueger, 1974;Keohane, 2005) argue that the state is the main player in price setting game and thus it should ensure low and affordable prices for products of first priority to its citizens, as the latter are the weaker side in economic transactions, as compared to production corporations or big retailers. At the same time, neoliberal economic proponents (Hirschl, 1998;Appel, 2000;Clift & Tomlinson, 2012;Draskovic, 2016;Scekic et al, 2016;Draskovic et al, 2019;Luchko, Lukanovska & Ratynsky, 2019;Vovk, 2012) state that the government has only a few instruments to influence retail prices. In their turn, prices are being set and controlled only by a supply-demand mechanism and all governmental interventions leads only to negative consequences for both producers, retailers and consumers.…”