Discuss of the welfare state. However, it needs

Discuss
the relationship between neoliberalism and globalisation with reference to more
than one example.

As geographers have seen the
developments in technology and communications, and the world becoming
increasingly ‘globalized’ it has led to the production of critical literature
of neoliberalism and the proliferation and effects on society and its
relationship with Globalisation. Economic geographers such as Harvey highlight
the dominance that neoliberalism has on Western economies, some geographers
will argue that neoliberalism is the main driver of globalisation and that
globalisation itself can be seen as both the effect of, and the move towards
global neoliberalism (Litonjua, 2008). Economic neoliberalism is an economic
theory that argues for economic success state intervention must be reduced on
the movement of capital, goods and people. However, this essay will argue that
although there is an undeniable relationship between neoliberalism and
globalisation, the relationship must not be over simplified and have
neoliberalism labelled as the sole driver of globalisation. But instead both
terms must be measured for their developments through history and prevalence in
society today.

It is
integral to note that the concept of neoliberalism must be differentiated from
other strands of liberal economic theory. Harvey demonstrated the hegemonic
turn towards neoliberalism in economic practices since the Thatcher and Raegan
administrations. A theory that can be traced back to the Chicago school in the
early 70s, puts forward the idea of laisses-faire
economics, reduction of state intervention and the push back of the welfare
state. However, it needs to be understood that this definition is limited in
understanding the difference between neoliberalism and other liberal economic
theories. Neoliberal policies such as: reducing trade tariffs and barriers,
reduced protectionism, limiting powers of trade unions and privatisation of
state owned enterprises became common practice since the 1970s onwards.
Enabling Neoliberalism to be established as ‘an ideological and de facto policy
monopoly’ (Centeno 2001:1) and described as ‘a set of principles rules
undivided across the globe…the most successful ideology in world history
(Anderson, 2000:17).

In
order to evaluate the relationship between neoliberalism and globalisation,
there must be a comprehensive understanding of both terms. Litonjua (2008:254)
argues, “globalization is the global spread of the economic system of
capitalism. Promoted by the ideology of neoliberalism, the goal is a wholly
deregulated global market society”. However, I critique this definition as
I believe it narrows the concept down too far, and the process of globalisation
and the shift towards a more interconnected world cannot be reduced or
understood as being just this shift and spread of economic capitalism. But
instead we should refer to Scech and Haggis (2000) definition of
globalisation “as the intensification of global interconnectedness, a process
that they see associated with the capitalism as a production and market system.
(Smith 2008). It gives depth to the definition, an example of this being the
States role in implementing Neoliberal policies and its ability to spread over
nation boundaries. This concept of a ‘borderless world’, (Smith, 2008) is one
that neoliberalism has managed to spread across nations and boundaries and
therefore it can be argued that globalisation promotes neoliberalism. However,
I believe that with the three main areas of globalisation being: cultural, political and economic to
imply it is the ‘most successful ideology in history’ (Anderson, 2000), is to
undermine that the systems act and depend on each other. When studying
globalisation one particular ideology should not be given hierarchy over the
others but instead it should be understood as a set of processes that, in time,
enable us to describe the world as increasingly globalised.

Neoliberal
policies began to be implemented worldwide which showed disparities in wealth
across the globe. Evidence that there is a relationship between neoliberalism
and globalisation was the 2008 market crash. After neoliberal policies were
adopted in the West, it was believed that the market was self-correcting
mechanism and therefore intervention and management was unnecessary. When the
market crashed to the lowest rate since the 1920s the ripples were felt across
the globe. In Sydney the market fell 8.34%, Singapore entered a recession for
the first time since 2002, stocks in Prague fell by 13% and trading in Brazil
down by 10% (J, Kollewe, 2008). This is evidence for the fragile relationship
between Neoliberalism and globalisation. Leaders in the West strived for cross
territorial trade, and the rapid movement of capital across borders which
highlights a relationship between our two terms, but this is evidence and the
beginning of the argument that neoliberalism process is far more complex than a
set of economic guidelines and has been compared to a subtler resurrection of
colonialism.

The
arguments put forwards regarding Neoliberalism being the driver of
Globalisation I believe are limited. It fails to understand that neoliberalism
was not the start of globalisation but instead globalisation is a concept that
has existed for far longer than the economic theory of neoliberalism, it may
have been propelled in recent years by economic and technological factors but
is a less brutal and more subtle way of the ideas built up in colonial times.
The Global shift towards Neoliberalism was due to western governments forcing
the ideas, through a list of economic policy propositions, The Washington
Consensus. Bales argued that “the new slavery mimics the world economy by
shifting away from ownership and fixed asset management, concentrating instead
on control and use of resources or processes” (cited in K.Manzo 2005) and
therefore it shows the importance for Geographers to question the degree to
which neoliberalism is a different form of ‘civilisation mission’ (G.Hart 2002). After the Consensus was applied to
most nations in Africa, on average it was understood that incomed declined by
23%. Evidence that neoliberalism does not benefit equally, and the various
forms of neoliberalism will result in nations developing differently, which can
not result in a fully homogenised world

‘A narrow range of western theories
have historically dominated how we think and study cities in the global south’.
McFarlane (2006: 1416), is a theory that neoliberalism is an idea forced on
developing countries by the West, decided on our terms and at our pace simiar
to the colonial era. An example of preceptory development, was a program that
directly led to the employment of 126 fisher people spanning 7 Caribbean
countries.  It was an innovative approach
in which the money went directly to the people rather than the development
practitioners. However, there was still development objectives to be met and
targets to be reached, and the program ended after just 3 years. This is an
example of post-colonial theory and the typical thought of ‘West is best’. Therefore,
when examining the relationship between neoliberalism and globalisation we must
be aware of where the bulk of our information comes from. The rapid changing
process and cause effect of one against the other means it is important to
analyse carefully. A factor of transfer of knowledge of ideas is integral when
understanding the spread of Neoliberalism across the globe. Neoliberalism,
alike many other ideas and scholarships sees knowledge moves from the global
North to the global South and never in reverse. Postcolonial geographers have
been challenging postcolonial studies by focusing “upon systems of reference
other than those produced by and for the West” (Bell, 2002:67), similar to
Chakrabarty arguing that “Third world Historians feel a need to refer to works
of European history but historians of Europe do not feel any need to
reciprocate” (Robinson 2003). This bring attention to data and research that
will be missing when western scholars put forward theories of globalisation.
Typical markers of globalisation, e.g. The Big Mac index are all from the west.
It is important to understand that when evaluating work there is a complexity
in the scholarship in that research collected has a very obvious bias, but I
believe as long as attention is paid to this then it allows for a more
successful evaluation of the relationship between globalisation and
neoliberalism.

Examples of the changing relationship
that Neoliberalism and Globalisation can be seen in variations in how
governments adapt Neoliberal policies into their economic policy. There is
evidence of a lack of Neoliberal Policies in many nations in Africa, unlike
Europe, China and the US, it fails to map the same success story. ‘Defenders of
neoliberal-structural adjustment programs naturally find Africa an inconvenient
case’ (Ferguson, 2006), this could be due to the lack of technological
advancements in many countries in the continent and factors such as Zimbabwe
being relatively unaffected by the recession as they face the dollar in
freefall resulting in most Zimbabweans being unable to access cash from their
bank accounts. Neoliberalism has created the beginning of a world that
marginalises and develops ruthlessly regardless of those who cannot keep up.
Countries in Africa’s inability to adapt to neoliberalist policies while the
rest of the world develops and arguably makes money off the backs of poorer
nations demonstrated by Pecks statement ‘strong sense that neoliberal prescriptions and strategies of rile are
being imposed for ‘outside’ or ‘from above'(Peck, 2004). This idea that
“less developed countries remain poorly integrated into the global economic
system” (Smith, 2012) shows that there is a relationship between neoliberalism
and globalisation that needs careful attention. Neoliberalism, pioneered by the
West is merciless to the global south if they are unable to keep up and as
previously demonstrated the argument that neoliberalism is a less brutal, more
subtle transfer of ideas similar to the colonial era.

We have seen post the 2008 crisis a
backlash to both neoliberalism and globalisation, and the relationship being
demonstrated as more delicate than economists would have pre-empted. Both
Brexit and Donald Trump being voted as President of the United States shows the
movement by people against globalisation, and the desire to have national
identity back. Nigel Farage using the return of the ‘iconic’ blue passport as a
campaign technique which worked with the electorate. Brexit and Trump
capitalised on a shift in opinion that there was the desire to reclaim national
identity and anger towards the open market. 2016 and 2017 showed public opinion
being a rejection and a desired step back from one nation and a borderless
world mentality. 

To conclude, I believe it is
imperative that the complexity of the issue is not forgotten. The adaptation of
Neoliberalism has become more than an economic policy, but it is undeniable
force in everyday life. There are of course immeasurable effects that
neoliberalism has on those countries in which the policies are applied. Larner
2003 suggests that ‘there needs to be a continuing and critical dialogue
between analysis of neoliberalism in general… and those engaged in its messy
specificities’ (Peck 2004). The power of neoliberalism which is described as
something that has ‘come to regulate all we practice and believe'”(S.Metcalf 2017), is also
undeniable that the process of globalisation has moved in waves synonymous to
neoliberalism. However, although the relationship is undeniable and undoubtedly
connected I state the importance for it not being over simplified as there is
substantial evidence for ‘Neoliberalism being a contemporary form of economic
imperialism'(Peck, 2009) and by definition will never be able to offer a truly
globalised world, as different forms of neoliberalism will be spread and
adapted across nation states and territories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, P (2000) ‘Renewals, New Left Review

Centeno, M. A. and Cohen, J. N. (2012). ‘The arc of
Neoliberalism’, Annual Review of Sociology.

Ferguson, J. (2006), Introduction, Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal
World Order, Durham and London: Duke University Press, Chapter 1

Hart, G, 2002. Geography and
development: development/s beyond neoliberalism? Power, culture, political
economy. Progress in Human Geography,
26(6), pp.812-822.

Harvey, D. (2005) A Breif History of Neoliberalism, New York:
Oxford Unveristy Press

Kollewe. J. ‘Market Crash, How Panic Spread Across the Globe. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/10/marketturmoil-creditcrunch1

Litunjua, M. D. (2008), ‘The Socio-Political Construction of
Globalisation’, International Review of Modern Sociology.

Manzo, K, Modern Slavery, Global Capitalism &
Deproletarianisation in West Africa, Review
of African Political Economy No.106: pp 521-534

Metcalf, S (2017) “Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the
world”, The Guardian, Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world

McFarlane, C. Crossing Borders:
Development, learning and the North- South divide.

Peck, J (2004) Geography and public
policy: constructions of neoliberalism. Progress
in Human Geography, 28(3), pp.392-405.

Peck, J. (2009) Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents

Smith, C. (2012), A Brief Examination of Neoliberalism and Its
Consequences, Sociology lens.