The planet is experiencing a process of social metamorphosis on a global scale. Some of the features of the transformations taking place in this current social structuration process include the expansion of the 4.0 revolution and its impact on productivity and labor, the massification of a political economy of morality based on non-truth, the growing number of refugees and migrants around the world, military tensions, and wars of a multilateral nature.
These changes come accompanied by the rising to power of a ânewâ group of people and political parties. Trump in the United States, Macron in France, Temer in Brazil, Macri in Argentina, and Rajoy in Spain are some examples of leaders who have been considered conservative and neoliberalâalthough they implement politics that are different, to say the least.
âContradictorilyâ,1 in this context, it is still possible to observe an actual increase in the number of social welfare programs, an ongoing support of citizensâ purchasing power through monetary transfers by states, a long list of international and regional programs to alleviate poverty, and an endless number of initiatives taken by companies and large corporations related to corporate social responsibility.2
If we add to the picture the fact that, in the social sciences and in political discourse, neoliberalism seemed to have been confined to and overcome by the 1990s, the question that gives structure to this proposal becomes central and urgent: what does neoliberalism mean today?
Academics, scientists, businesspeople, students, and public opinion deploy the term âneoliberalismâ as found in everyday life narratives, social media commentary, and mass-mediated news, and the references often provided by its producers point to the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, but without clarifying how, why, and in what sense is today similar or different from that previous period. Our proposal aims to offer answers to these questions.
The book that we hereby present also offers a distinctive contribution to the social sciences from at least three perspectives: it involves the collaboration of European and non-European authors which broadens the outlook on the phenomenon; it discusses, in general, the theoretical features of what today it is possible to call the âneoliberalâ; it also contains the analysis of particular topics where it is possible to clearly observe how the neoliberal approach works.
Another potential we offer with our book is that the reader can take a multidisciplinary perspective from sociological, anthropological, historical, communication, and tourism points of view, which allows the work to be received in different academic fields and social sectors.
This introduction is designed in three parts in which the main idea is to schematize the content of the book and gives a propaedeutic account about neoliberalism. The first part is focused on neoliberalismâs âtraditionalâ key social and theoretical practices, the second part opens a conceptual description of neoliberalism, and the third summarizes the book chapters showing their inter-relationships.
Neoliberalism: Its Key Social and Theoretical Practices
In this section, the central goal is to summarize some of the well-known features of âtraditionalâ neoliberalism, such as its economic approach and political regimen (Mirowski and Plehwe 2015; Karagiannis et al. 2013; Hayek 1960, 1968a, b).
An economic model is the way a country decides to confront its need for development into the future. Neoliberalism presents as an essential feature that the actions of individuals will have to take efficiency as their ultimate goal. This will be the purpose of any project to be undertaken. Characterized by an instrumental view of life, this model secured private ownership of the means of production and took the world market as growth promoter, having the private sector as its main agent (Cahill and Konings 2017; Saad-Filho and Johnston 2005).
The foundation of neoliberalism is based on the logic of the pure market in the name of economic efficiency, hence it entails:
- the subordination of the nation to the requirements of economic freedom for markets states;
- prohibition of deficits and inflation;
- the general privatization of public services;
- reduced public and social costs;
- questioning of administrative and political barriers;
- overcoming all those organizational structures that arise as obstacles;
- new exchange rules that require a new institutional framework;
- (through these policies) reducing both labor costs and public spending and pursuing labor flexibility.
Foreign trade is another area in which this model imposes its rules. What is proposed is that each country takes its âcomparative advantageâ to trade internationally.
The possibility of alliances at a regional level (e.g. the Mercosur-type integration in Latin America) is not contemplated.
The idea of benefits/advantage is based on the idea each country specializes in the production of their goods, looking for comparatively lower costs in exchange with the outside. Thus, revenues returned by these exports allow you to import those goods whose production cannot be undertaken at lowest cost (no benefits). Following the principle of the benefits/advantage, it is considered wrong to allocate resources to the national textile industry (to offer an example); if it is possible instead to develop some export industry with dollar revenues allowed by the import of foreign textiles.
On the labor front, it tried to diminish the ability to organize workers, increased underemployment, unemployment, and self-employment. We find an individualist and competitive field of work involving the weakening of collective solidarities. From this point we can grasp the concept of the individual that grew out of neoliberalism: a lone but free individual, who is able to choose the most convenient option based on a cost-benefit calculation. The best option will be one that gives the maximum gain at the lowest cost. The pursuit of self-interest is naturally stimulating. The commitment is to oneself and no one else.
Consequently, much of the population is excluded from the possibility of the socioeconomic conditions necessary for survival, being immersed in uncertainty and job insecurity , without backing in such a situation because the powers of the nation state have been significantly eroded.
Neoliberalismâs model for the private sector plays the leading role in the areas of production, distribution, and consumption. In practice, this translates into a transfer of property and what has historically belonged to the state to private sector activities, for example, privatization of national assets, health, and education.
All direct and conscious intervention by the state is discredited in advance and doomed to fade in favor of a pure and anonymous mechanism: the market. It is the market that dictates what, how, how much, and for whom production will be.
Traditional Neoliberalism as a Political Project
is based on a sort of power of export capitalists and financiers who control the state.
The need for the state is rejected from the standpoint of neoliberal thinking, with the assumption that private enterprise (which produces goods or provides a service) is characterized by a utility maximization that will ensure the efficient use of resources.
This strategy assigns, on one hand, the state a defined role: to intervene only to ensure the free market; and on the other, great power is granted to the business sector regarding the provision and implementation of policies that benefit it without regard to the consequences resulting therefrom.
In the shadow of this fact, it is noted how and where the structure of the neoliberal political system leads: the basis of the choices and decisions of the owners of capital is the path to manage the economy and the society.
There arises here a fundamental political fact: the emergence of a neo-authoritarian political system under the guise of the electoral process. Regimes resort to an authoritarian style of governmentâcharacteristic of military regimesâin order to implement the pro-neoliberal policies of privatization of public enterprises, promote agro-industrial interests harming the peasants and rural workers, and increasing the number of urban unemployed on lower wages.
Neoliberalism is compatible with the democratic political regime, but depends on authoritarian institutions to implement its program measures. The electoral process itself loses value because neoliberal politicians always campaign for an actual policy program and even promise to correct the abuses of populism . Once elected, they proceed to deepen and extend the process of privatization. Thus, there is a really very wide gap between what happens during the election campaign and what neoliberalism practices when in power. The absolute lack of correspondence between election campaigns and the elected government encourages voter apathy and rejection of electoral politics, fostering political strategies of the clientelist type.
In short, the origins of neoliberalism are neither âtechnologicalâ nor âeconomicâ but, in the end, political and social: neoliberal policies and ideological expressions following the seizure of state power. From this vantage point, we can now examine the political consequences of the reign of neoliberalism.
Toward a Conceptual Description
From mass media and social networks to the academic context, there are different and countless definitions of neoliberalism, and only as a first approximation we analyze here a few conceptual approaches as a springboard for our systematics reflections.
For neoliberalism, the market is the social institution that most efficiently produces order and freedom.
The claims advanced by this group insist that the market is the most efficient and moral institution for the organization of human affairs, which seems to suggest that it could and perhaps even should replace all other institutions (e.g. family, state, community, and society) as the primary mechanism for producing, promoting, and preserving social order. In particular, neoliberals have argued that the market should replace any collectivist forms of planning, where socialist and redistributive policies are seen as key impediments (Hayek 1944/2001; Friedman 1962). Consequently, neoliberalism entails both positive assumptions (i.e. the market intro is more efficient than other institutions) and normative assumptions (i.e. the market should replace other institutions because it is both more efficient and liberating). (Springer et al. 2016: 3)
Neoliberalism is presented as a utopia of social articulation that implies a connection between what is done and what should be done.
A key of neoliberalism is to present itself as an overcoming of the known forms of liberalism and obviously of what neoliberal thought calls collectivism:
âNeoliberalismâ is a rather broad and general concept referring to an economic model or âparadigmâ that rose to prominence in the 1980s. Built upon the classical liberal ideal of the self-regulating market, neoliberalism comes in several strands and variations. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize neoliberalism is to think of it as three intertwined manifestations: (1) an ideology; (2) a mode of governance; (3) a policy package. (Steger and Roy 2010: 11)
The three sides of the neoliberal triangle organize a field of forces between social practices that have become moral norms and organizational criteria.
Neoliberalism represents the way of life that involves the expansion of the financial world as a fraction of the ruling class is the class that governs the planet.
Neoliberalism is often described as the ideology of the market and private interests as opposed to state intervention. Although it is true that neoliberalism conveys an ideology and a propaganda of its own, it is fundamentally a new social order in which the power and income of the upper fractions of the ruling classes â the wealthiest persons â was re-established in the wake of a setback. We denote as âfinanceâ this upper capitalist class and the financial institutions through which its power is enforced. Although the conditions which accounted for the structural crisis were gradually superseded, most of the world economy remained plagued by slow growth and unemployment, and inequality increased tremendously. This was the cost of a successful restoration of the income and wealth of the wealthiest. (DumĂ©nil and LĂ©vy 2005: 9)
Neoliberalism is a modality of redefinition of what is the âwealth of nations â and of those who are rich.
Neoliberalism globalizes and massifies trying to increase the credibility of the superiority of the market as a structuring axis of society against other âsystemsâ of organization:
The very idea that markets are self-organizing, efficient and liberating is no longer credible, but illustrates the extent to which neoliberalism â as shorthand for market-like rule â is an economic, political and ideological project pursued by certain groups (such as governments and corporations) to construct a reality that is perceived to be founded in the inherent properties of economic markets. (Birch and Mykhnenko 2010: 2)
Neoliberalism is based on a politics of sensibility that elaborates the sensations and perceptions from which the traits of the market are taken as âontologicalâ qualities of the social world.
We can observe that there are many ways to conceptualize neoliberalism; one is to emphasize its economic vision, another is to summarize its political approach, and yet another is to view it as a set of policy programs.
Following the above quotation, I propose here some central and basic axes of neoliberalism that allow for an introductory identification; these âdefinitionsâ offer a basis to reconstruct a conceptual overview of neoliberalism:
- (a)The multiple character of neoliberalism, like a government program, economic approach, and ideology
- (b)The market-centered perception about the structuration of the social world
- (c)The planetary scope of neoliberalism
These three characteristics have some strong connections: the planetary horizon makes fundamental changes in neoliberalism such as a politics of sensibilities, because it is the first scientific approach ...