The IMF, Neoliberalism and Hegemony

Mueller, Julie

doi:10.1080/13600826.2011.577032

Cited by 48 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature is richer on the controversial policy areas on which this article focuses. On fiscal policy, existing studies are split between those who argue that there was virtually no change (Babb ; Gabor , ; Güven ; Mueller ) and those who argue that change has been extensive (Broome ; Clegg ; Grabel ; Lütz and Kranke ). Both sides make valid points, yet in order to adjudicate the debate, the state of the art needs a more systematic before‐and‐after comparison accompanied by clear observable implications, metrics, and benchmarks.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recalibrating Policy Orthodoxy: The IMF Since the Great Recession

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue reviews patterns of policy stability and change at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since the Great Recession and attempts to explain their causes. The contributors show that the crisis ignited a reassessment regarding how the IMF would position itself as a pivotal player in global economic governance. Some new ideas and evidence definitely found their way into IMF decision making, but this process was often tempered by the nature of the institution and the powerful interests that control its governing structure. Where change did occur, its causal generators could be found in some combination between IMF staff politics, a string of innovations coming from academic and IMF economists, and the emerging economic powers' creative leveraging of institutional fora both within and inside the Fund.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recalibrating Policy Orthodoxy: The IMF Since the Great Recession

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As an organisation, the IMF has arguably done more than any other to propagate global neoliberal hegemony (Mueller, 2011). It has been instrumental in propagating, and imposing core neoliberal principles on governments through 'soft' and 'hard' power (Deacon, 2007;Woods, 2006), the former evidenced through its national economy reports, the latter evidenced in loan conditionality, through regular IMF reviews of national economies, special reports and in interviews and speeches given by senior officials.…”

Section: Dreaming On: the International Monetary Fundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ideological interests of even the IMF, the most unequivocal exponent of 'neoliberal' economic ideas, are interwoven with its purpose as a global actor and its constraints as an international organisation (Taylor, 2004;Mueller, 2011;Clift and Tomlinson, 2012). While elements of neoliberal economic practice clearly suit the financial sector for example, capital has no inherent desire for a 'free' market and neither are there monolithic prevailing business interests that support a small state per se (see e.g.…”

Section: Neoliberalism Is Dead: Long Live Neoliberalism!mentioning

confidence: 99%

Austerity: Neoliberal dreams come true?

Farnsworth

Irving

2018

Critical Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite original, full and proofed article. AbstractThe 2008 global economic crisis paved the way for the construction of a new, elite-driven, capitalcentric, shrunken welfare state project founded on ideology disguised as pragmatism and objective 'truths'. Today, welfare states exist in a context in which a new politics of austerity sets the parameters of the debate. Austerity incorporates the neoliberal desire to shrink the (social welfare) state, deregulate labour markets and emphasise private markets as the drivers of growth, enabling a reconfiguration of the interests of capital, the needs of people and the role of the state. The new politics of austerity looks like a 'dream come true' for neoliberals. Or is it? There is also a powerful counter-narrative that suggests that the global crisis exposed the fundamental weaknesses and limitations of neoliberalism and forced policy makers to question core principles and change direction. Focusing on the International Monetary Fund (IMF), perhaps the preeminent global neoliberal interlocutor, and using quantitative textual analysis, the article locates some evidence of movement, but little to suggest that the fundamental assumptions of neoliberalism have been displaced.

show abstract

“…grammes. In the framework presented in Mueller (2011), this kind of organisational ! self-affirmation could be seen as an important element of the IMFÕs role in sustaining !…”

Section: Discussion Of Words In Context!mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…particular, other authors demonstrate how this limits the scope for challenging such ! privileged ideas (Mueller, 2011;Peet, 2009;Taylor, 2004).! The arguments in this article advance from the position that IMFÕs international role !…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deciphering the International Monetary Fund’s (IMFs) position on austerity: Incapacity, incoherence and instrumentality

Farnsworth

Irving

2017

Global Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Back in 2009, at the height of the global financial crisis, the London G20 forum met ! and declared the Washington consensus dead. What emerged in its place was a ! contradictory and confusing array of narratives and international policy prescriptions ! for post-crisis recovery that owed as much to the past as the present. Divisions within ! and among International Governmental Organisations (IGOs) arose about how best ! to address the economic challenges, but the dominant solution was 'austerity' which ! became firmly rooted in the policies and discourse of national governments and ! international organisations alike. While signalling a downward political reconditioning ! of public welfare expectations, the austerity strategy has itself lacked organisational ! conviction and coherence. Austerity is, thus, important for identifying the location ! of social policy in international post-crisis economic discourse. Since the crisis has ! paradoxically, bolstered economic interests at the expense of political choice, it is also ! necessary to study the crisis responses advocated by economic organisations as more, ! rather than less significant in shaping welfare futures. This article draws on evidence ! from a textual content analysis of International Monetary Fund (IMF) documents over ! the period 2004-2015 to examine discourse on austerity and social policy. The findings ! indicate that, while the language of 'austerity' and policy prescriptions vary, the IMF's ! essential position has been to advocate austerity-like policies throughout the period, ! leaving its ideational 'economistic' position on the purpose of social policy fundamentally ! unchanged. These findings contrast with others that perceive a shift towards social ! justice concerns within the organisation, whereas our evidence suggests that the IMF's ! position on social policy is one of ambivalence and incoherence.!

show abstract

The IMF, Neoliberalism and Hegemony

Cited by 48 publications

References 2 publications

Recalibrating Policy Orthodoxy: The IMF Since the Great Recession

Recalibrating Policy Orthodoxy: The IMF Since the Great Recession

Austerity: Neoliberal dreams come true?

Deciphering the International Monetary Fund’s (IMFs) position on austerity: Incapacity, incoherence and instrumentality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About