Liberal Democracy and Neoliberalism: A Critical Juxtaposition

In this essay I argue that neoliberalism is both an economic and a political doctrine and that its historical trajectory, both conceptual and political, especially in the United States, is better understood in relation to its complex relationship of affinity with liberal democracy. The intersection between liberal democracy and neoliberalism is thus better apprehended from the perspective of the separation of the economic and the political in capitalism and the relative autonomy that it structurally grants to each field of power. Liberal democracy has provided a depoliticized framework that nurtures neoliberalism, while providing it with a cloak of legitimacy. Stated somewhat differently, the historical trajectory of liberal democracy, as a theory and as a practice of power, betrays an anti-democratic tendency that leads to depoliticization and has quelled the democratic politics that once gave credence to it, thus paving the way for the rise of neoliberalism.     

From Reagan to Trump: The Origins of US Neoliberal Protectionism

Donald Trump is often seen as a radical departure from the neoliberalism that has shaped recent American history and, at first glance, nowhere does this seem truer than on trade. Trump’s support for protectionism certainly seems to depart from neoliberalism, which we are used to thinking of as involving unqualified support for free trade. But should this really be seen as a departure? This paper argues that, instead, Trump’s trade policy should be seen a kind of ‘neoliberal protectionism’, which seeks to use the coercive power of the state to force other nations to conform to a market‐based economic logic. The origins of this neoliberal protectionism can be traced back to the 1980s when debates about foreign industrial policies first caused the United States to adopt a more aggressive approach to trade. From this perspective, Trump’s trade policy represents not a rejection of neoliberalism but an extreme articulation of it.     

State intervention and neoliberalism in the globalizing world economy: lessons from Singapore's regionalization programme

The recent 1997-98 Asian economic crisis has thrown Asia's divergent pathways to development into serious question. Protagonists of neoliberalism argue that their agenda is now becoming a global orthodoxy when several ailing Asian economies have accepted IMF packages which come with neoliberal economic programmes. Drawing on lessons from Singapore's regionalization programme, this article contends that it is far too early to conclude that Asian developmental states are giving up their governance of domestic economies. Instead, there is evidence that these Asian developmental states are re-regulating their domestic economies to ride out of the economic crisis. The article first starts with the debate between neoliberalism and state developmentalism in our understanding of global political economy. It then examines the political economy of Singapore's regionalization programme through which Singapore-based transnational corporations are strongly encouraged by the state to regionalize their operations, followed by a critical discussion of the impact of the recent Asian economic crisis on the re-regulation of the regionalization programme by the state in Singapore. Some lessons for Asian emerging economies are suggested in the concluding section.     

Denunciatory technology: forging publics through populism and secrecy

This paper theorizes contemporary institutionalized forms of denunciation, or what I call ‘denunciatory technologies’. Denunciatory technologies are mechanisms that allow citizens to report one another to the state for a wide range of wrongdoing, such as welfare fraud. The scarce literature on such initiatives relies heavily on concepts of neoliberalism to explain their emergence and operation. I first argue that a focus on neoliberalism fails to recognize these technologies as a sophisticated type of statecraft that promotes public sensibilities. I then offer a more robust account of denunciatory technologies. Rather than relying on an analysis of neoliberalism, I argue that these technologies fuse the policing of political criminals like the ‘welfare cheat’ to the very notion of ‘public good’, and refract vertical populist energies back onto the population. I conclude that, through such technologies, publics become an integral tool in their own governance.     

The prospects of egalitarian capitalism in the global South: Turkish social neoliberalism in comparative perspective

Abstract

This paper studies the transformation of economic and social policy in Turkey during the 2000s. The policy mix that has emerged can be usefully conceptualized as social neoliberalism, combining relatively orthodox neoliberal economic policies and retrenchment of the protective welfare state (e.g. labour market institutions) with a significant expansion, both in terms of public spending and population coverage, of the productive welfare state (e.g. public health care). Therefore, social neoliberalism as a development model is distinct both from social democracy and orthodox neoliberalism. Its rise in Turkey during the 2000s is arguably best understood with reference to the interests of the AKP's support coalition, the salience of inequalities in access to public services, and the disconnect of social policy-making from civil society mobilization. Turkey's experience with social neoliberalism provides an important reference point for theorizing the ‘social turn’ that since the 2000s has occurred in many late-developing countries with now maturing welfare states, including Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and Chile.     

The state in industrial relations: A cross-national analysis of developments and socioeconomic effects

Abstract This is a comparative study of the three main roles of the state in industrial relations: the state as employer in the public sector, state intervention in private–sector–wage bargaining, and the procedural role of defining a legal framework for industrial relations. Based on data from 20 OECD countries, the article's analytical focus is twofold. For each of these roles, the paper examines whether there is a convergence towards neoliberal regulation in response to the shift from demand–side to supply–side policies, and whether neoliberalism is superior to alternative regulation forms in terms of performance. No evidence of such dominance of neoliberalism can be found. The upshot is that developments of state regulation are as much path–dependent as its socioeconomic effects are contingent on a country's context.     

The state in industrial relations: A cross–national analysis of developments and socioeconomic effects

This is a comparative study of the three main roles of the state in industrial relations: the state as employer in the public sector, state intervention in private–sector–wage bargaining, and the procedural role of defining a legal framework for industrial relations. Based on data from 20 OECD countries, the article's analytical focus is twofold. For each of these roles, the paper examines whether there is a convergence towards neoliberal regulation in response to the shift from demand–side to supply–side policies, and whether neoliberalism is superior to alternative regulation forms in terms of performance. No evidence of such dominance of neoliberalism can be found. The upshot is that developments of state regulation are as much path–dependent as its socioeconomic effects are contingent on a country's context.     

The Emerging Neocommunitarianism

The financial crisis which began in 2007 has been widely interpreted as a crisis of neoliberalism, akin to the crisis of Keynesianism of the 1970s. But there is little sign of a major paradigmatic alternative, either in theory or in practice. This article looks at how the crises and failures of neoliberalism are occurring at a micro‐policy level, where they are interpreted in terms of the fallibility of individual rational choice. Policy responses to this crisis, drawing on more psychologically nuanced accounts of economic behaviour, can be described as ‘neocommunitarian’, inasmuch as they echo the communitarian critique of the liberal self. Where neoliberalism rests on a vision of the individual as atomised and rational, neocommunitarianism treats individuals as governed by social norms and incentives simultaneously. And where neoliberalism subjects individuals to periodic audit organised around targets and outputs, neocommunitarianism conducts a constant audit of behavioural fluctuations in real time.     

Normalizing Sino‐Indian relations

Realism and neoliberalism, two schools of international relations theory, provide contending explanations for state behaviour in the international system. The latter believes that interstate cooperation will create institutions and regimes for the peaceful settlement of conflicts. The former argues that only ‘self help’ — the building of individual state military capabilities — can assure that state interests will be protected. A review of Southeast Asian security policies demonstrates that both paradigms coexist as the region's members enhance their individual military capabilities because of territorial disputes with neighbours, while simultaneously entering into new collaborative arrangements such as the ASEAN Regional Forum. The ARF has begun as a venue for discussions and reassurance among Southeast Asian states and external powers in hopes that the zero‐sum character of pure realism may ultimately be transcended.     

The Sacred,Social Creativity and the State

Abstract

This paper explores the specific contribution of a strand of contemporary French social theory founded by Cornelius Castoriadis and Claude Lefort to the under standing of human power. It formulates a conception of power that transcends its definitions in terms of physical coercion or institutionalised violence to reveal the way power is creative and institutes the social. Its reflection on the cultural nature of political power and it role in society is shown to extend the pioneering reflection of Durkheim's sociology, especially as regards the homology that exists between religion and politics. The social role performed by the state explored by Durkheim prefigures Gauchet's theory of the state, which builds on Lefort's work. Gauchet's theory can be said to elaborate a critical synthesis of the two stands of Durkheim's work: the sociology of religion and the sociology of the modern state. This synthesis raises questions on the role played by the European state in the development of individualism, in both its political and economic manifestations.     

Crisis for the State or Crisis of the State?

The Conservative‐Liberal Democrat government's policy risks turning the financial crisis into a crisis of the state. This article argues that the current trajectory of the British state risks exacerbating the very social antagonisms which it has fought so hard to contain in recent years. It contends that the crisis (2007–09) was a crisis of neoliberalism and yet, paradoxically, neoliberalism—in the form of further depoliticisation and a new politics of debt—is being re‐invoked to deal with the post‐apocalyptic condition of the British economy. The article suggests that the state lacks the necessary political discourse to secure popular consent and—as a result—is resorting to a more coercive form of political management; and that the effects of austerity are being offset through an increased indebtedness of the British public. Both risk igniting social conflict. In the conclusion several points are indicated for an alternative political agenda.     

Social Character: Erich Fromm and the Ideological Glue of Neoliberalism

Several thinkers have expressed the view that the central nostrums of neoliberalism, including self-reliance, personal responsibility and individual risk, have become part of the “common sense” fabric of everyday life. My paper argues that Erich Fromm’s idea of social character offers a comprehensive and persuasive answer to this question. While some have sought the answer to this conundrum in Foucault’s notion of governmentality, I argue that, by itself, this answer is not sufficient. What is significant about the notion of social character, I claim, is that it manages to unify “top-down” approaches like governmentality focused on ideas and policy, with “bottom-up” approaches focused on how the insights of day to day experience are mediated through culture. Adapting this theory to neoliberalism, I argue, means that the “common sense” nature of neoliberalism, and the lack of a reckoning for its massive economic failure (as evidenced by the 2007 Great Recession), are explicable through the formation of a neoliberal social character, by means of which experiential processes align with cultural meanings and, subsequently, fuse with social expectations.     

The neurotic citizen

Over the last three decades we have witnessed the birth of a subject that has constituted the foundations of a regime change in state societies: the neoliberal subject. As much as neoliberalism came to mean the withdrawal of the state from certain arenas, the decline of social citizenship, privatization, downloading, and so forth, it also meant, if not predicated upon, the production of an image of the subject as sufficient, calculating, responsible, autonomous, and unencumbered. While the latter point has been a topic of debate concerning the rational subject, I wish to argue that the rational subject has itself been predicated upon and accompanied by another subject: the neurotic subject. More recently, it is this neurotic subject that has become the object of various governmental projects whose conduct is based not merely on calculating rationalities but also arises from and responds to fears, anxieties and insecurities, which I consider as ‘governing through neurosis’. The rise of the neurotic citizen signals a new type of politics (neuropolitics) and power (neuropower). I suggest a new concept, neuroliberalism—a rationality of government that takes its subject as the neurotic citizen—as an object of analysis.     

Nudging the Neoliberal Agenda: Administrative Opportunities in the Deregulated State

The current climate of neoliberalism in the executive branch is attended by active deregulation and distrust of the administrative state. As protections are rolled back, there is concern that individuals may be susceptible to information asymmetries that will influence their decision making, leading to detrimental outcomes for both their own and the general welfare. Behavioral public administration—the bureaucratic conception of “nudge” theory—offers ways to counter the pitfalls that come with greater freedom of choice, as promoted by the neoliberal agenda. Public administrators may employ alternative mechanisms, such as choice architecture, to help people make better decisions in the absence of explicitly protective regulations. After laying out the argument for a behavioral approach, this article analyzes several neoliberal agenda issues with potential nudge responses for practical implementation, as well as a justifiable call for action to protect the public welfare in the absence of policy guidance.     

'Habitation vs. Improvement' and a Polanyian Perspective on Bank Bail-outs

The bank bail-outs enacted by the Brown government in the wake of the 2007 credit crunch have had a distinctive political character. Despite the government's pronouncements on the merits of swift and decisive interventions, I argue that this does not amount to a return to the interventionist regulatory form associated with post-war British welfare capitalism. The Polanyian distinction between 'habitation' and 'improvement' is used to show that the bail-outs were designed by contrast to defend the underlying deregulatory logic of the existing financial regime. The only real change of note was to uncover forcibly the often hidden influence of the state in the making and regulation of an ostensibly market-led neoliberalism and the creation instead of a much more overt state-led neoliberalism. Habitation strategies were incorporated into a structure of financial deregulation, making it more rather than less difficult to rejuvenate state capacities consistent with enhancing societal welfare. The bank bail-outs offered short-term salvation for distressed firms within the financial sector without providing the state with socialised control over the conduct of banking business in order to promote forms of social policy consistent with post-war British welfare capitalism.     

China: an East Asian alternative to neoliberalism?

The political-economic evolution of post-Mao China has been portrayed as a historically inevitable embrace of neoliberalism; as an exemplification of the East Asian developmental state and as an extension of Soviet New Economic Policy-style state capitalism. This paper evaluates these portrayals through a broad historical and geographical framework. It examines the position of China as a new state after 1949. It then places the shifting logics of socioeconomic regulation in China in relation to (1) the global neoliberal hegemony since the 1980s and (2) the concomitant shifts in the economic policies of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In so doing, the paper demonstrates how the Communist Party of China creatively adapted and re-purposed regulatory logics from the Washington Consensus and East Asian policies to consolidate its own version of Leninist state-led development.     

The normalizing role of rationalist assumptions in the institutional embedding of neoliberalism

The political economy of Britain over the past three decades provides an interesting example of the consolidation, normalization and institutionalization of a new economic paradigm – neoliberalism. As such, it serves as a potentially instructive focus for debate both about the conditions under which economic paradigms are replaced and consolidated and the evolution of such paradigms through the process of institutionalization. In this paper I suggest that the institutionalization of this new economic paradigm has been associated with the shift from a normative to a normalized and necessitarian neoliberalism. I examine the role played by rationalist assumptions in this extended process of normalization-institutionalization. After presenting a stylized account of the evolution of British neoliberalism, I show how New Labour's monetary policy regime is the heir to the legacy of monetarism and its agenda of labour-market reform is the heir to Thatcherism's supply-side economics. I suggest that the time-inconsistency thesis and the business school globalization thesis have played an equivalent role, for New Labour, to that played for the new right by monetarism and supply-side economics in legitimating neoliberalism. In this way neoliberalism has been normalized. In the final sections of the paper I reflect on the implications of the normalized and necessitarian character of neoliberalism in Britain for its contestability and for democratic economic governance more broadly.     

Neoliberalism and the alcohol industry in Ireland

This paper sheds light on the development of the Irish alcohol industry and its regulation since the 1980s by situating it within the politico-economic context of neoliberalism at the national, European and global scales. First, a conceptualisation of neoliberalism is presented and the alcohol industry is related to it. Second, the connections between neoliberalism, the drinks industry and alcohol legislation are explained and illustrated at the three spatial scales mentioned above, emphasising the following components of neoliberalism: deregulation, liberalisation, commodification, free trade agreements and transnational capital flows. The paper provides a theoretical template for future research.     

Neo(liberal) citizens of Europe: politics,scales, and visibilities of environmental citizenship in contemporary Turkey

The aim of this article is to critically interrogate articulations of environmental citizenship in contemporary Turkey. Specifically, I analyse articulations of environmental citizenship through citizen and activist narratives taken from interviews and focus group discussions. I argue that first, scalar focus on local spaces and individuated responsibility for action that emerge from the narratives are crucial to understand future environmental politics and possibilities in this context. Invoking recent discussions related to the politics and performativities of scale, in particular, allows consideration of the politics of visibility and other consequences of these scalar foci. Second, themes from narrative analysis show key convergences with Europeanization- and neoliberalization-related discourses and shifts. The resonance and overlap between these discourses and practices is significant, particularly as it shows citizen receptivity towards broader ideas related to increased citizen responsibility. As such, the research contributes to efforts to move away from theorization of processes such as neoliberalism as top-down, instead enabling examination of ways that these ideals are taken up, expressed, and refashioned by everyday citizens. The third argument that emerges from the analysis, following from the first two, is the need to theorize power more fully in discussions of environmental citizenship. Bridging with neoliberalism discussions is one possible way to move such a project forward.     

Organized elite power and clean energy: A study of negative policy experimentations with renewable portfolio standards

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) is one of the most widely adopted clean energy policies in the U.S. However, organized elite power groups, backed by ample political and economic resources, have been known to lead RPS termination efforts. In the context of state renewable energy politics, organized elite power includes legislators affiliated with American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and anti-renewable energy business groups. Focusing on the roles of organized elite power, this study investigates the drivers of the formulation of RPS rollback (goal freeze) and termination bills, which we refer to collectively as negative policy experimentations. We find that RPS termination attempts are explained by the presence of ALEC legislators and anti-renewable energy business groups, whereas RPS goal freeze bills are better explained by conditions of policy operations. This study contributes to the policy process theory by providing critical insights into the post adoption decisions, including policy termination and rollback legislations, with a focus on the role of organized elite power.