The Limits Of Neoliberal Globalization (original) (raw)

NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIZATION AND ITS POLITICS

During the 1990s, globalization was one of the hotly discussed concepts of social sciences. Previously associated with liberalism, it acquired a neoliberal character with the dawn of the 21 st century. Nevertheless, the meaning of neoliberalism and its relation with liberalism still needs to be clarified. Mainly, it is asserted that neoliberal globalization thoroughly disengaged from liberal globalization as the former requires and nourishes strong states rather than the weak states of the latter era. Internationally, it is said to be transformed into a new type of imperialism and witness the emergence of an empire. Domestically, neoliberal globalization is strengthening authoritarian policies and practices both in anti-democratic states and established democracies. On the one hand, these two developments go hand-in-hand and trigger each other. On the other hand, they share a common point: strong states are both internally and externally dedicated to liberalization of markets, and support liberal market values. This situation refutes conventional liberal theories on globalization, according to which internationalization of capitalism and market relations would boost the development of democracy in nation states. In this framework, this paper will focus on the domestic politics of neoliberal globalization. First, it will introduce the conceptual richness that describes neoliberal politics, such as electoral authoritarianism and competitive authoritarianism. It will assert that neoliberalism reinvigorates archaic political regime types, which are unbounded by the constitutions, and only sporadically respect rights and liberties.

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...

The End of Neoliberal Globalism: A Critical Perspective

Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 2021

There has been a growing trend towards protectionism, particularly in the Global North in recent years. The rise of Trump, Brexit and tighter immigration control across Europe and America seem to run contrary to the conventional neoliberal globalism discourse of free flow of people, capital, goods and information across the globe. Using a qualitative approach and drawing on data from published works, this paper argues that these events are part of the Global North's rebellion against neoliberal globalism. This process is not external to the process of neoliberal globalism but integral to it. Although the current rise of nationalism and protectionism does not represent an end of globalization, it represents the end of the discourse of globalization as a fit all economic and political solution to diverse nations. This demands that alternatives to the current thinking be considered. A new form of globalization must consider issues of income and economic inequality among nations and people. It must offer the chance to the nation state to reinvent itself as the welfare providing and protecting states.

The “evil globalization” & the central dialectic tug-of-war in the new globalization’s shaping

Civitas Gentium, 6(1), 89–134, 2018

Over the recent years there has been internationally a tremendous increase in the number of people engaged in the very concept of globalization and the economic crisis. This largely prolongs a lot of infertile conflict between some opposing “entrenched camps”, in scientific as well as social and political terms. Unfortunately, this process of thought takes a character, most often, extreme, dogmatic, and aphoristic. This article is structured in a way to:  First, unravel the threads of globalization dynamics, of their development and crisis, and to establish a basic analytical framework towards the search for a “new globalization”.  Second, investigate the structural socio-economic opposing views of global dynamics (the tug of war between the critical dimensions of Globalization) that advance always in an evolutionary way.  Third, based on the available data, evaluate the most significant accomplishments, of every area of interest, which derive from the Globalization evolutionary procedure.  In the end, rewrite the main directions that a modern socio-economic global intervention requires in terms of moving the world system towards a new phase of development, which we call the “New Globalization”.

The Limits of Economic Globalization

2020

This essay is concerned with economic globalisation; within the political economy debates, globalization is used to refer to the process of integration and interdependence of national economies under a single world economy. Globalisation is also perceived as a political project of the US for the expansion of free market, liberal democracy, and internationalisation of neoliberal policies. (Kiely, 2007)

Neoliberal Globalization

Cambridge Scholars publishers, 2022

The purpose of this work was to clarify the nature of globalization in contemporary times. Globalization represents a Durkheimian mechanicalization of the world via the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism under American (neoliberal) hegemony. The power elites of the latter (American hegemon) serves as an imperial agent, an empire, seeking to interpellate and embourgeois the masses or multitudes of the world to the juridical framework of the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism, and in the age of (neoliberal) capitalist globalization and climate change this is done within the dialectical processes of two forms of fascism or system/social integration: 1) right-wing neoliberalism and 2) identity politics masquerading as cosmopolitanism or hybridization.

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONSTRUCTION OF GLOBALIZATION

Four images dominate the debate on globalization : that it is a contentless process steamrolling economies and societies; that it is an inevitable and irreversible force of nature; that it redounds to the benefit of all individuals and countries; and that it is compatible with and accompanies democracy. The article contends otherwise. Globalization is the spread of unregulated global capitalism; it is constructed and promoted by economic elites and their political allies; it benefits the few and impoverishes the many, thus aggravating inequalities; and it undermines and subverts democratic transparency and governance.

The Dilemmas of Globalization

Language, individual & society, 2016

Globalization is one of the most important contemporary megatrends. Paradoxically, it is still not fully known. In my talk I will show that “globalization” is an ambiguous term. I want to highlight three aspects of globalization: economic, political and cultural. The assessment of globalization in these aspects is not unambiguous because globalization itself is not isomorphic. Thus in the context of globalization there is a place both: for a clash of civilizations and for their homogenization; for ecological disasters and for extraordinary actions saving the environment; for the triumph of liberalism and free market capitalism and for counter-reactions to them; for the stability of nation states and for the emergence of powerful, private, non-state agents.