The continuing ecological dominance of neoliberalism in the crisis (In Economic transitions to neoliberalism in middle-income countries: Policy dilemmas, economic crises, forms of resistance) (original) (raw)
Related papers
This paper makes the argument that neoliberalism represents the evolution of imperialism in the 21st century and can be considered a distinct form of imperialism itself. It comprehensively analyzes imperialism's economic, political, military, and cultural or ideological dimensions. It highlights the transition from traditional colonial powers to contemporary global players, focusing on the United States as an imperial power and the quintessential neoliberal state. This transformation involves shifting from overt colonization towards subtler strategies centered on securitization, economic dominance, and capital accumulation. The paper also explores how modern neoliberal imperialism relies on the global market as a powerful tool to advance dominant nations' interests while maintaining the facade of independence for peripheral countries. It also examines the relationship between the ruling classes and their complex relations with global capitalism and their significant role as instruments for promoting the agendas of leading nations.
The Reproduction of Neoliberalism and the Global Capitalist Crisis
The Interdisciplinary Journal of International Studies, 2012
The paper attempts to contribute to a critical reading of contemporary global political economy. It provides an analysis through an empirical exposition of the latent and manifest ways neoliberalism is being reproduced institutionally and relationally despite and because of the ongoing global capitalist crisis. To this end, three interrelated themes are highlighted here: first, the constitutive role and functional character of crises in the evolution of capitalism and the reproduction of its current neoliberal configuration; second, the continuity of long-held ideas of groups ranging from multilateral organizations to global justice movements – hence, the absence of relatively new perspectives – as evident in their respective policy prescriptions and crisis responses that effectively perpetuate the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism; and third, the emergence of the political-economic regime of authoritarian liberalism in East and Southeast Asia as a perceptible consequence of the intensifying crisis.
A World Safe for Capital: How Neoliberalism Shaped the International System
Foreign Affairs, 2019
Slobodian makes a groundbreaking contribution. Unlike standard accounts, which cast neoliberals as champions of markets against governments and states, Slobodian argues that neoliberals embraced governance—chiefly at the global level. By going above national borders, they neutralized politics within those borders, so that democratic governments could not obstruct the security and mobility of property. Gradually, despite encountering resistance at every turn, they helped build a world order guided by the principle of “capital first.” For Slobodian, their success casts a disturbing light on many of the international rules and institutions that make up today’s global order—but also shows how different people, with a different program, could change them.
Neoliberalism (in The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization)
Neoliberalism has had an interesting trajectory. It was initially formulated as an intellectual-cum-political project in 1938; enjoyed growing acceptance as an economic and political strategy in the 1970s; witnessed panic-stricken meetings in New York and Washington a generation later at the height of the global financial crisis; and, most recently, seems to be undergoing a return to business as usual. There have been many efforts over these long decades to promote (or defend) ‘neoliberal’ institutions and practices as the best basis for economic, legal, political, social, and moral order in complex social formations. There is an even wider range of commentaries and criticisms concerned with neoliberalism, its core features, social bases of support, and its impact on various sites and scales from the local to the global. This contribution addresses some of these issues. It has five main aims: to offer a baseline definition of neoliberalism; to discuss different social scientific approaches to neoliberalism; to distinguish four main types of neoliberalism from a critical political economy viewpoint and relate them to the world market, geopolitics, and global governance; to review the contradictory aspects of neoliberalism in actually existing capitalism; and to assess its prospects after the first global financial crisis and first great recession of the 21st century.
Dados, 2025
This article analyses the World Bank as an agent of the neoliberalization of global capitalism, with an emphasis on its functions as a lender, adviser and technical advisor to governments, civil society agent, and producer of economic research during the period from 1980 to 2023. Based on primary sources from the institution itself and extensive specialized literature, the article shows how the World Bank’s activities have become increasingly comprehensive, politicized, and intrusive, but with variations in form, content, and intensity in its political agenda and operational practices. It concludes that, in a global environment marked by major economic and political changes, greater contestation of supposedly universal economic recipes, and uncertainties about the future, the World Bank has remained faithful to the neoliberal political paradigm, but it has started to act in a more pragmatic, flexible, discreet way that depends on the circumstances and priorities of the borrowers (especially the larger ones). Keywords: World Bank; conditionalities; structural adjustment; austerity; post-Washington consensus
The twilight of neoliberal globalization
Terra Economicus, 2020
The author employs contemporary Marxist theory and methodology, and its theoretical concept of finance monopoly capital in particular, to analyze the decline of the neoliberal globalization currently under way. The paper shows that offshoring and financialization that developed during the neoliberal era have reinforced monopolistic dominance by mature imperialist states (namely, the “triad” of USA, EU and Japan), leading to the new division (or recolonization) of the periphery. As a result, the geo-economic space has become rigidly structured in a hierarchy of the groups of nations, with production having become increasingly organized within global production networks controlled by transnational corporations based in the “triad”. However, mass transfer of the labor-intensive industries to low-wage countries of the periphery, and to China in particular, has resulted in geopolitical and economic rise of the latter, thus intensifying competition and struggle between national imperialis...