Macquarie University ResearchOnline · Raewyn Connell & Nour Dados Publication Attribution This is the Accepted Author Manuscript for the article Connell, R & Dados, N 2014, “Where

Macquarie University ResearchOnline

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published as:

Connell, R. & Dados, N. (2014). Where in the world does neoliberalism come from?

The market agenda in southern perspective. Theory and Society, Vol. 43, Issue 2,

p. 117-138.

Access to the published version: 31TUhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11186-014-9212-9

Copyright: The final authenticated version is available online at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11186-014-9212-9

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.12.003

ThisistheAcceptedAuthorManuscriptforthearticleConnell,R&Dados,N2014,“Whereintheworlddoesneoliberalismcomefrom?”TheoryandSociety:RenewalandCritiqueinSocialTheory,Volume43,Issue2,pp117–138.Thefinalpublicationisavailableatlink.springer.com

1

Whereintheworlddoesneoliberalismcomefrom?ThemarketagendainsouthernperspectiveRaewynConnell&NourDadosPublicationAttributionThisistheAcceptedAuthorManuscriptforthearticleConnell,R&Dados,N2014,“Whereintheworlddoesneoliberalismcomefrom?”TheoryandSociety:RenewalandCritiqueinSocialTheory,Volume43,Issue2,pp117–138.Thearticleisonlineat:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-014-9212-9 Thefinalpublicationisavailableatlink.springer.comAbstractNeoliberalismisgenerallyunderstoodasasystemofideascirculatedbyanetworkofright-wingintellectuals,orasaneconomicsystemmutationresultingfromcrisesofprofitabilityincapitalism.BothinterpretationsprioritizetheglobalNorth.WeproposeanapproachtoneoliberalismthatprioritizestheexperienceoftheglobalSouth,andseesneoliberalismgainingitsmainpoliticalstrengthasadevelopmentstrategydisplacingthosehegemonicbeforethe1970s.FromSouthernperspectives,adistinctsetofissuesaboutneoliberalismbecomescentral:theformativeroleofthestate,includingthemilitary;theexpansionofworldcommoditytrade,includingminerals;agriculture,informality,andthetransformationofruralsociety.ThinkersfromtheglobalSouthwhohaveforegroundedtheseissuesneedcloseattentionfromtheNorthandexemplifyanewarchitectureofknowledgeincriticalsocialscience.KeywordsNeoliberalism.GlobalSouth.Market.Intellectuals.State.Trade.Agriculture.Informaleconomy.Development.Inourgeneration,neoliberalpowerandmarket-dominatedsocietyhavebecomepracticalrealityformuchoftheworld’spopulation.Policyagendasthatcombinetaxcuts,deregulation,privatization,tradeliberalization,insecurelabor,andthesqueezingofwelfare,education,andhealthspendinghavegainedimmenseinfluencesincethe1970s.Adoptedbysocial-democraticaswellasconservativeparties,theseagendashavesurvivedseveraldecadesofcritique,crisis,andresistance(Cahilletal2012).Equallyimportantaresocialandculturalchanges,rangingfromleaguetablesforschoolstotheproliferationofconfectedcompetitionsontelevision.Aspectaculargrowthofauditingmechanisms(splendidlyanalyzedbyPower1999),andalanguageof“excellence”andcompetitive“performance,”havebeenchangingorganizationallife.Marketthinkingpenetratescommunitiesandevenfamilies,changingthewaypeoplerelatetoeachotherandthinkabouttheireverydaylives(BraedleyandLuxton2010).Howcoherent“neoliberalism”reallyishasbeenthesubjectofmuchdebate.Somescholarstreatallthesephenomenaasgrowingfrom“asingle,fundamentalprinciple”(Mudge2008,p.706),thesupremacyofmarketcompetition.Othersquestionthe


2

programmaticcoherenceofactuallyexistingneoliberalism(Larner2000;Thurbon2012).Aninfluentialrecentbooktreatsneoliberalismasanassortmentoftechnologiesofgovernmentthatcanbemovedaroundtheworldindependentlyofeachother(Ong2006).Someresearchersemphasizethedifferentstylesandsequencesofneoliberalpowerindifferentworldregions(Phillips2004;Chester2012).Therearecertainlyvarietiesofneoliberalism.The“Ordoliberalism”ofagroupofeconomistsinpostwarGermanyemphasisedprivateproperty,enterprise,andcompetitionontheonehand,butconsumerautonomyandanti-monopolyontheother-settingthisagendaagainstthecorporatecapitalthatsupportedtheChicagoschool(Oliver1960;RieterandSchmolz1993).Inthelastthreedecadeswehaveseenreligiousaswellassecularneoliberalism,neoliberalismoflaborpartiesandofthefarright,andneoliberalismofdictatorshipsaswellasparliamentaryneoliberalism.Whatisinquestion,then,isabroadhistoricalshiftinideologyandpracticeratherthanasingledoctrine.Thisshifthasbecomeastrategicproblemforprogressivepoliticsandsocialthought.Tounderstandtheworldwearenowin,weneedtounderstandwhereneoliberalismcomesfromandwhyithasgainedsuchstrength.Inthisarticlewearguethatamisperceptionoftheseissueshasbeendominantinsocialscience.Thereasonisunderstandable:themostinfluentialaccountsofneoliberalismaregroundedinthesocialexperienceoftheglobalNorth,whichisinfactonlyafragmentofthestory.ThegeopoliticalpatternofknowledgethatprioritizestheNorthisnowrecognizedasamajorprobleminsocialscience.Itiscontestedinavigorouscriticalliterature,includingworkontheglobaleconomyofknowledge(Hountondji1997),southerntheory(Connell2007;Meekosha2011),alternativetraditionsinsocialscience(Alatas2006;Patel2010),postcolonialsociology(Bhambra2007;ReuterandVilla2010),indigenousknowledge(OdoraHoppers2002),thepsychologyofliberation(Montero2007),decolonialthought(Quijana2000;Mignolo2007),thedecolonizationofmethodology(Smith1999),andmore.Thesevariedcontributionsallpointtotheneedforsocialsciencetopayfarmoreattentiontothemodernsocialexperienceofthemajorityworld,andrecognizetheworkofintellectualsgeneratingtheory,aswellasdata,fromtheperiphery.ThisarticleexploresneoliberalismbyprioritizingresearchandthoughtfromtheglobalSouth,broadlyunderstood(fordefinitionseeDadosandConnell2012).Webeginwiththemostfamiliaraccountsofwhereneoliberalismcomesfrom,suggestingwhytheyareinsufficient.WethenidentifyacentralthemeinthehistoryofneoliberalismacrosstheSouth,themarketagenda’sroleasadevelopmentstrategy.WefollowthisclueintothreemajorarenasofdebateandsocialstruggleacrosstheSouth:globaltrade,thestateandmilitaryforce,andlandandagriculture.Wepresent,alltoobriefly,examplesofworkfromdifferentgroupsofintellectualsthatbuildupapictureofneoliberalismclosertothesocialexperienceoftheperiphery.Inthisapproachthereiscertainlyariskofover-generalizing.Wethinkitariskworthtakingforaricherandmoreempoweringunderstandingofthemarketagenda,itssources,anditsconsequencesonaworldscale.


3

OriginstoriesinthemetropoleThemostinfluentialaccountsoftheoriginsofneoliberalismfallintotwogroups.ThefirststoryispresentedwithminorvariationsinDavidHarvey’smuch-readABriefHistoryofNeoliberalism(2005),BarrySmart’sless-readEconomy,CultureandSociety:ASociologicalCritiqueofNeo-liberalism(2003),JosephStiglitz’smild-manneredGlobalizationanditsDiscontents(2002),NaomiKlein’shard-edgedTheShockDoctrine(2007),andinmanyothertexts.Thisapproachtreatsneoliberalismcentrallyasasystemofideas,amountingtoashiftinthedominantideologyofcapitalistsociety,“therulingideasofthetime”(Harvey2005,p.36).Inthisnarrative,neoliberaldoctrinesprangfromagroupofright-wingeconomistsinEuropeandtheUnitedStatesinthe1940s,50s,and60s,notablyFriedrichHayekandMiltonFriedman.ThisgrouprejectedKeynesianeconomicsandthewelfarestate,seeingstateeconomicinterventionas“theroadtoserfdom”(inHayek’sfamousphrase),andarguedforfreemarketsasthebasisofdecision-makingineverysphere.GraduallyspreadviatheMontPelerinSociety,theChicagoschoolofeconomics,andcorporate-fundedfoundationsintheUSA,theirideasmovedfrommargintocenterwhenpickedupbyThatcherandReaganasanewagendaforpopulistright-wingpolitics,andbyVolker,attheUSFederalReserve,asaguidetoeconomicpolicy.Thatcherledtheattackonthebloatedwelfarestate,Reagantheattackonprogressivetaxation.ThemodelwasthenrolledoutgloballyviatheIMFandWorldBank,structuraladjustmentprograms(SAPs),andtheWashingtonConsensusonglobaleconomicpolicy.Forthispartofthestory,Kleinemphasizesdictatorship,violence,andintimidation,Stiglitzemphasizeschangeddoctrinewithintheinternationalfinancialinstitutions.Buttheoverallnarrativeisthesame:asystemofideasgeneratedintheglobalNorthgainspoliticalinfluenceintheNorthandisthenimposedontheglobalSouth.Asimilarsequenceisexploredinadifferentstyleinthe“governmentality”literatureaboutneoliberalism.Inlecturesdeliveredin1979,MichelFoucaulttracedtheintellectuallineageofEuropeanandUSneoliberalthought.HepresentedtheAmericanversion,especially,asanewwayofconstruingtheeconomicsubjectasan“entrepreneurofhimself”(Foucault2004).LaterworkbyAihwaOng(2006)andmanyothershasdescribedboththemarkettechnologiesbywhichpopulationsaregoverned,throughregimesofincentivesanddisincentives,andthecreationofthenewsubjectivitiesrequiredbymarketdiscourse.Thegovernmentalityapproachallowsforamorevariedpictureofneoliberalismanditssites,andmoreemphasisontheeverydaydimensionofpower.Butitsharesthestoryaboutorigins.MitchellDean,forinstance,describesneoliberalismasa“militantthoughtcollective”(2012,p.86),andheisreferringtothesamearrayofEuropeanandNorthAmericanright-wingintellectuals:Hayek,Friedman,andtheirfriends.ThisisFoucault’sstoryasmuchasitisHarvey’s,andforthatmatterBourdieu’s(1998),forwhomneoliberalismisamadutopiandoctrinefoistedonmodernsocietybyanunholyallianceofeconomists,businessmen,andtechnocrats.


4

Thesecondgroupoforiginstoriesfocussesoneconomicmechanismsandassumesasystemsmodelofcapitalism.ExamplesareStephenHaseler’sTheSuper-Rich(2000),andWilliamRobinson’(2001)valuableworkontheriseofatransnationalstate.ThelogicisbestrepresentedbyGérardDuménilandDominiqueLévy’sCapitalResurgent:RootsoftheNeoliberalRevolution(2004).DuménilandLévy’sthesisisthatacrisisincapitalismemergedintheUnitedStatesandwesternEuropeinthelate1960sand1970s,specificallyatroughinprofitability.Neoliberalismexpressesthe“politicalwill”ofthecapitalistclass,especiallyfinancialinstitutions,torestoretheirrevenuesandpower.The“neoliberalrevolution”achievedthisbyclampingdownoninflationandsocialentitlementsandexportingthenegativeeffectstotheglobalperiphery(e.g.,theLatinAmericandebtcrisis),ortovulnerablegroupsinthemetropole(theunemployed,workersonlowwages).Newmechanismswerecreatedthatsiphonedthebenefitsofeconomicgrowthtowardsshareholdersandfinanciers,creatingthefinancializationthatisnowamarkedfeatureoftherichcapitalisteconomies.Essentially,DuménilandLévytraceneoliberalismtotheeconomicsystemdynamicsofcapitalism.Thedrivingforceisthematerialinterestofthecapitalistclass,especiallyitsmostwealthyandinfluentialsectors.Neoliberalismis,ineffect,anewstageinthedevelopmentofanintegratedcapitalistsystem.TheideaofacapitalistsystemundergoingcrisisandmutationisalsothebasisoftheprescientanalysisofneoliberalismbyAntonioNegri.In1973Negripublishedanaccountofthe“enterprise-state”(stato-impresa),andtheshiftawayfromKeynesianism,asastrategyofcapital.Negri’sargumentcenterednotonthestrengthofcapitalismasasystem,butonitsweakness.Theeconomicmechanismsofcapitalismhadbeensode-structuredbyworking-classstrugglethatnewmeansofvalorizationhadtobecreated,whichcouldonlybedone“withinaprojectthatisqualitativelydifferentfromthatofreformistplanning.”Thismeantadisarticulationofproductionfromcirculationandthecreationofanewkindofproductivesubjectwhocouldnotactcollectively.Inanothertext,Negrishowedhowproductivityitselfbecamethemechanismoflegitimationandcapitalattemptedtoexploitnotjustlaborwithinthefactorybutproductivesociallifeasawhole—athemepursued,muchlater,inthefamousbookEmpire(Negri1973,1977;HardtandNegri2000;Connell2012).Thereisatendencyinthiswholeliterature,perhapsstrongerinthefirstgroupofstoriesbutalsopresentinthesecond,toseparateneoliberaltheoryfromneoliberalpractice.Thetheoryistreatedaspureneoliberalism,thepracticeasitsalways-imperfectrealization.Nodoubtthisispartlybecausethetheoryissoeasilyavailable,inhardlinetextssuchasFriedman’sCapitalismandFreedom(1962).Itispartlybecauseneoliberalpolicyentrepreneursthemselvestalkedthisway,frequentlylambastingpoliticianswholackedthecouragetoimplementthehardline.Butthisseparationhastheunfortunateeffectofdivertingourattentionfromthepracticalproblems(possiblyverydifferentfromthosethatpreoccupiedFriedmanorHayek)towhichneoliberalpracticesseemedtooffersolutions.Thetwogroupsoforiginstoriesshareageo-politicalperspective.Thecultural


5

storiesfocusonintellectualsinEuropeandtheUnitedStates;thepolitical-economystoriesfocusontheeconomyofEuropeandtheUnitedStates.Whenneoliberalismappearselsewhere,itisanexportfromtheNorthoracopyofNorthernpolicies.Here,forinstance,isthesequenceaspicturedbyaprolificteamincriticalgeography:Neoliberalismfirstgainedprominenceduringthelate1970sasastrategicpoliticalresponsetothedecliningprofitabilityofmassproductionindustriesandthecrisesofKeynesian-welfarism....Furthermore,followingthedebtcrisisoftheearly1980s,neoliberalprogramsofrestructuringwereextendedselectivelyacrosstheglobalSouththroughtheeffortsofUS-influencedmultilateralagenciestosubjectperipheralandsemi-peripheralstatestothedisciplineofcapitalmarkets(Pecketal.2009,p.50).SimilarlyDrake(2006,p.26)opensapaperonthehegemonyofUSeconomicdoctrineswiththesentence“TheimplantationofU.S.neoliberalisminLatinAmericaintheclosingdecadesofthetwentiethcenturyresembledtheinstallationofU.S.laissez-fairedoctrinesintheopeningdecadesofthatsamecentury.”Theliteratureonneoliberalismthusfollowsafamiliarpatterninsocialscience,findingthecausaldynamicintheNorthandtreatingtherestoftheworldasthesceneofapplicationofNorthernideas.Databasesearchesshowthatpapersexplicitlyreferencing“neoliberalism”becameasubstantialliteratureinEnglish-languagesocialsciencejournalsbetween1992and1996.Thisliteraturemainlyconcernedprivatization,de-industrialization,welfarestaterollback,andtheirconsequences—clearlyaddressingtheThatcher/Reaganagenda.Therehadbeen,infact,anearlierliteratureaboutneoliberalismintheglobalSouth(e.g.,Bailey1965),whichwasfocusedonmarkedlydifferentthemes.Of73studiesonneoliberalismpublishedbetween1980and1989,27wereaboutLatinAmerica,withasignificantportionfocusedonagriculture(e.g.,Silva1987,1988).TheseearlierpublicationswerenotreferencedwhentheNortherncriticalresearchemergedinthe1990s.Thefactthattwodecades’worthofintellectualworkonmarketagendascouldbesoeasilyomittedfromaccountsproducedafter1990requiressomecarefulreflectiononknowledgeproductiononaworldscale.Themainstreameconomyofknowledgeprivilegesuniversalizingmodelsoftheorywhilemarginalizingworkthatislocatedinspecificspatio-historicalcontexts,especiallyintheSouth,asethnographicordescriptiveonly(Connell2007;Hountondji1997;Santos2007;Chakrabarty2000).Accountsofneoliberalismthataddresschangesinsocial,political,andeconomiclifespecifictoregionsoutsideEuropeandNorthAmericaareverylikelytofallintothisdisregard;iftheyappearatall,tobenomorethanfootnotesinthestoryofneoliberalism.Yettounderstandtheworld-widetransitiontowardsmarketsociety,thesedisregardedstudiesarestrategic.Agricultureandlandownershipmatter.Theywerecentralinnationalliberation,developmentpolitics,andeconomicself-sufficiency.Itisnotsurprisingthattheywerekeysites,intheStructuralAdjustmentProgrammesofthe1980s,fortherestructuringofthepost-colonialstate.


6

WhilethehistoryoflandownershipandagriculturalproductionintheglobalNorthhasaverydifferenttrajectoryfromthatofthepost-colonialworld,thetwoareintimatelylinkedbythehistoryofcolonialexpansionandimperialism.Theexperienceofcolonizationandtheglobalrelationshipsforgedinthathistoryremaincentraltotheproductionofsociallifeandtheconstructionofknowledgeinthepost-colonialworld.Theyareyettofindseriouscurrencyinnarrativesofneoliberaltransition.Re-thinkingcontentandsequence:neoliberalismasdevelopmentstrategyAkeyquestionishowneoliberalismbecametheinstitutionalizedframeworkofstatepolicy,andheretheNorthern-centerednarrativesencounteradisturbinganomaly.ThefirstsubstantiallyneoliberalregimewasactuallyinthefarSouth,thecivil-militarydictatorshipinChile,whichturnedtoneoliberalpoliciesasGeneralPinochetconsolidatedhispersonalpowerduring1974(Silva1996).BythetimeReagancametopowerintheUnitedStates,neoliberalmoveswerealreadyproliferatingaroundtheglobalperiphery.TherewereneoliberalcurrentsinotherauthoritarianregimesinSouthAmericainthe1970s,includingBrasilandUruguay(Calv1979).Indeedsomeofthesecurrentshademergedinthe1960s.NeoliberalinitiativeswerebeingpromotedinTurkeyin1978–79andwereturnedintoanationalpolicyframeworkbyTurgutÖzalinthe“January24package”of1980(Ozel2003).Inthesettler-colonialstateofAustralia,anacross-the-boardcuttotariffswasenactedasearlyas1973,byaLaborgovernment—akeysteptowardsabandoningstate-supportedindustrialization.TheneoliberalagendaofthePinochetregimeisquitewellknown.IntheNorthernliteratureitisoftenmentionedandthenforgotten;oritisrecuperated,byexaggeratingtheinfluenceoftheChicagoschooleconomists,viatheirChileanstudentswhobecamepolicymakersandentrepreneursandweredubbedbySantiagowits“losChicagoBoys.”.Howevervibrant,thelinkwithChicagodoesnotbegintoexplainwhyaculturallyconservativemilitaryleaderwouldadoptaneconomicideologynotatthetimemainstreamintheUnitedStates.Theexplanationisnotdifficult(Valdés1995;Silva1996;Moulian2002).TheChicagoBoys—andtheotherplayersinthemakingofthedictatorship’seconomicpolicy—werenotofferingGeneralPinochetatextbookofeconomictheory.Theywereofferingasolutiontohismainpoliticalproblem:howtogetlegitimacybyeconomicgrowth,satisfyhisbackersintheChileanpropertiedclass,andkeepthediplomaticsupportoftheUnitedStates,withoutgivinganopeningtohisopponentsinthepoliticalpartiesandlabormovement.Neoliberalismasadevelopmentstrategymetthoseneeds.Itabandonedthepreviousstrategyofindustrialization,thusweakeningtheindustrialworkingclassandtheunionsbasedonit.Itlookedforgrowthtoanexpansionofexportindustriesandfoundtheminminingandcommercialagriculture.Itthusre-orientedtheeconomytointernationaltrade.Itopenedtheeconomytointernationalcapital—whichinthesecondhalfofthe1970s,thepetrodollarera,waslookingforinvestmentsanddidflowintoChileonalargescale.Entrepreneurialfinancecapitalmushroomedaroundthisflow,particularlythreepowerfulfirms,Cruzat-Larraín,BancoHipotecariodeChile,andEdwards.Inflation


7

wascontrolledviatheexchangerate.Untiltheglobaleconomicdownturnof1981–2,thesemechanismsworkedwell,fromthepointofviewoftheregime.InthatcrisistheChicagoBoyswentunder.Butthedictatorshipsurvived,hammeringoutamodifiedneoliberalagendawiththemoreestablishedsectorsofChileancapital.Thisbecametheeconomicframeworkforthe“returntodemocracy”in1989andremainedinplaceafterwards.Inthesettler-colonialsocietiesofthesouth-westPacific,neoliberalagendaswerebroughtinbysuccessfulsocial-democraticleaders,notruling-classpoliticians.“Rogernomics”,thecreationoftheNewZealandfinanceministerRogerDouglasinthe1980s,wasasvehementasanythinghappeningintheUnitedKingdomorUnitedStatesatthetime.Douglas’smemoirs,whichhavethetellingtitleTowardProsperity,showthatLabourPartyneoliberalismwasseenasameansofovercomingtheeconomicstagnationunderthepreviousright-winggovernment(DouglasandCallan1987).ThemainderegulationmeasuresinAustraliawerebroughtinbytheAustralianLaborPartyfederaltreasurerPaulKeating,whoin1986famouslydeclaredthatAustraliahadtobecomemoreinternationallycompetitiveoritwouldbecomea“bananarepublic”,a“third-rateeconomy”.Thisstatementdefendedamajorturntowardsneoliberalism,locallycalled“economicrationalism”(Pusey1991).Itillustratesthefearthatdrovethepolicies—thatgrowthwouldstopandAustralia’sprivilegedlivingstandardswouldcollapse.Soneoliberalismdidnotentertheworldsceneasanattackonthebloatedwelfarestate.Inmanypartsofthedevelopingworld,includingthemostpopulous,therewasnowelfarestatetobloat.InthosepartsoftheSouthwheremovestowardsawelfarestatehadbeenmade,itwaslimitedinscale(ArgentinaunderthePeronists),confinedtoadominantethnicgroup(SouthAfricaunderApartheid),associatedwithafractionofthestate(Jordan,thearmedforces),orprotectedinitiallybythepartiesthatbroughtinderegulation(AustraliaandNewZealand).Whatneoliberalpolicymakershadtoattackworldwide,oftenusingCold-Wartools,wasotherdevelopmentstrategies.Themainrivals,adoptedbymanypost-colonialelitesinthe1950sand1960s,werecapitalistimport-replacementindustrialization(IRI,thestrategyurgedatthetimebyPrebisch,Furtado,andCEPAL,followedintheSouthPacificaswellasLatinAmericaandSouthAfrica);andSoviet-inspiredstate-centeredcommandeconomies(followedintheArabworldaswellasSouthandEastAsia).Overtime,neoliberaleconomists,journalists,andpoliticiansbysheerrepetitioncreatedawidespreadimpressionthatthesealternativeshad“failed”orwere“exhausted”.ThereisconsiderableevidencethatIRI,atleast,didnotfaileconomically.ButthereisnodoubtthatbothIRIandcommandeconomiesinvolvedunequaldistributionsofincome,technocraticviewsofthestate,andsmalllocalmarkets,makingthempronetolocalcrises(Kay1998;Vellinga2002).Itwasthesocialsettlementsaroundthesestrategies,suchaslaborrightsandinformalredistributivenetworks,thatwereatstakeinthestruggleoverdevelopment,andweretobedisruptedbythetriumphofneoliberalism.CelsoFurtadomadeafamousdistinctionbetweengrowthanddevelopment.Aggregategrowthinnationaleconomicindicatorsneednotmeananimprovedlifeforthe


8

majorityofthepeople(Furtado1974;foranadmirableEnglish-languageintroductiontohisthoughtseeMallorquín2007).Theneoliberaldevelopmentstrategy,seekinggrowthforaperipheralcountrybyopeningtheeconomytointernationalcapitalandbuildingexportindustriesbasedoncomparativeadvantageinglobalmarkets,mightyieldrapidgrowthinthosesectorsandstagnationinothers.SamirAmin(2012)hascastigatedtheresultas“lumpendevelopment”,lackingthebalancedgrowthoflinkedgroupsofindustriesandthesocialagendaofredistributionandeducation.OneneednotacceptAmin’spreferredalternative(anautonomouscommandeconomy)toagreethatneoliberaldevelopmentstrategyproducesadistinctivepatternofgrowthwithimportantsocialconsequences.Tosummarizetheargumentsofar:globalneoliberalismcannotbeunderstoodasaby-productoftheinternaldynamicsoftheglobalNorth.Plainly,EuropeandtheUSAandtheirrulingclassesareimportant.Butthestoryofthemakingofneoliberalismisbigger,andmoremulti-stranded,thanNorthernsocialsciencehasusuallyrecognized.NeoliberalismisnotaprojectionofNorthernideologyorpolicy,butare-weavingofworldwideeconomicandsocialrelationships.Inthisre-weaving,theshapeofworldtrade,thestrategiesofdevelopmentalstates,andthefateofagriculture,areallmajorissues,andwenowturntothese.Tradeandextractiveindustries:anewmercantilism?Internationaltradeisnotacommontopicincriticalsocialsciencenorsociologymoregenerally;butforthinkingaboutneoliberalismonaworldscale,itisavitalissue.Therewerenon-neoliberalapproachestoworldtrade.OneofthearchitectsofIRI,RaúlPrebisch,becameSecretary-GeneralofUNCTADinthe1960s,andoneofhismainconcernswastoopenNorthernmarketstoindustrialproductsfromtheperiphery,asapathtobroad-baseddevelopment(Prebisch1964).Butastrategyof“comparativeadvantage”thatleveragedSoutherndifference,ratherthanattemptingconvergentdevelopment,hadquickerandeasieraccesstogrowingglobalmarkets.Massivegrowthofmaterialtradewasmadepossiblebynewtechnology,butnotthehigh-technologyICT.Akeychangewastheriseofthehumblefreightcontainer(Levinson2006;Cudahy2006).Thisbeganin1956withthevoyageoftheshipIdeal-XfromNewarkcarrying58containers.Itwentontoincreasethespeedandsharplylowerthecostandlabordemandsoffreighthandling,integratinglandandseatransportsystems.Togetherwithsuper-tankers,bulkorecarriersandjetaircargo,thischangedtheeconomicandsocialsignificanceofinternationaltrade.Today,seabornetrafficaccountsfor90%oftotalglobaltrade,anditsvolumehasnearlyquadrupledsincePrebisch’stime,risingfrom2,566milliontonsin1970to8,408milliontonsin2010(UNCTAD2011,p.7).In2008worldtradeamountedtomorethan50%ofworldGDP(www.databank.worldbank.org).Thenewtransporttechnologiescreatedconditionsfavorablefortherestructuringofdomesticeconomies,notbylocalsocialsettlements,butviatransnationalmarkets.Southerndifferencetakesseveralforms,amongthemlaborcosts,space,agriculturalland,climate,mineraldeposits,andlocalpowerstructures.Export-orientedindustrializationbasednotonaneducatedworkforcebutoncheaplaborisafamiliarpartoftheneoliberalstory.CasesincludethemaquilasofnorthernMexico,thefactories


9

ofthe“southChinamiracle”,andthepoorlyregulatedclothingindustryofTurkey(VelascoOrtizandContreras2011;Lee1999;Kumbetogluetal.2010).Itwasthecombinationofthreedifferences—lowlaborcosts,regionaldevelopmentstrategies,andalocalstatepreparedtocarveoutspaceforthepurpose—thatledtothemostdistinctivefeatureofneoliberalgeography,theexportprocessingzone.Notallsuchinitiativesworked,asshownbyKeshavarzian’s(2010)strikingstudyoftwoexportprocessingzonesonthePersianGulf,onesetupbyDubaiandtheotherbyIran.Buttheidearemainsafeatureofneoliberaldevelopmentstrategy.InIndia,legislationtofacilitatespecialeconomiczoneswasproposedin2000,andagriculturallandhasbeenseizedtoimplementsuchzones(Aggarwal2006;Banerjee2010).Minerals,includingoil,areveryprominentinthecomparative-advantagestrategy.Extractiveindustryhadbeenafeatureofimperialeconomies,fromthefabuloussilverminesofPotosí,tothediamondsandgoldofSouthAfrica—overwhichtheDutchandBritishsettlersfoughtseveralwars—tomiddle-easternoil,seizedbytheBritishintheearlytwentiethcentury.PersianGulfoilcontinuestobegloballyimportant,anenclavedevelopmentonamassivescale(Askari2006),basedontripartitedealsamonglocalrulers,transnationalcorporations,andNorthernmilitarypower.AcrossmostofAfrica,MoeletsiMbeki(2009)argues,similardealsarethemodeofcontemporaryarticulationwiththeglobaleconomy.Inmostcasestheminingandoilpumpingindustrieshavelittlepayoffforthepeasantandurbanmajority.Heretheideaofneoliberalismasadevelopmentstrategyreachesalogicallimit.Growthtakestheformofrentsextractedbypredatoryelites,who,Mbekiargues,arenotaproductivebourgeoisie.TheprincipalexceptionisSouthAfrica,whereadegreeofindustrializationandlocalcorporatedevelopmentdidoccur,crystallizedinthe“minerals-energycomplex”atthecenterofthenationaleconomy.SincetheANC’sdramaticneoliberalturninthe1990s,localmanufacturinghasbeendestroyedbycheapimports,especiallyfromChina.Thiskeepsminingwagesdown,butgivesnocapacitytosoakupmassunemployment—aquarterofthelaborforceisnowofficiallycountedasunemployed(StatisticsSouthAfrica2013).Thegrowthofworldtrade,thecollapseoftheSovietempire,andtheturntocomparativeadvantageacrossmostoftheperipheryhaveproducedanexpandingandheterogeneousglobalcapitalism.Somepartsoftheperipheryhavedeindustrializedinfavorofprimaryexportindustries,includingChileandAustraliaaswellasSouthAfrica;thisriskslong-termdeteriorationinthetermsoftrade,theproblemPrebischwarnedagainstin1950.Civilwarandsocialdevastationfollowedtheextractive-industrydealswithtransnationalcapitalincountriesasfarapartasNigeriaandPapuaNewGuinea.Wealthisavailableforpoliticalelitesthatcanpositionthemselvesfavorablyintradeandfinancialflows;theyincludeSingapore’sPeople’sActionPartyandthemonarchyinMorocco,bothofwhichareessentiallyfamilycompanies,andonalargerscale,thepost-communistpowereliteinRussia.Thepost-authoritarianregimesinBrasilandIndiahavemanagedamore“balanced”developmentatthecostofdeepsocialinequalities.AlthoughonewouldhesitatetocalltheChineseregimeneoliberal,ithascertainlyadaptedtotheneoliberaltraderegime.Itsuniquecombinationof


10

commandeconomyandrobber-baroncapitalismhasproducedspectacularindustrialgrowth,aswellassocialtensionandenvironmentaldevastation.Contemplatingthispanorama,itisdifficulttoseethecleanlinesofeitherneoclassicalororthodox-marxistmodelsofcapitalism.Therearecertainlypatternsofdependency.SamirAminpithilycalledcapitalismasystemofunevendevelopmentonaworldscaleinwhich“thecentres‘restructure’themselvesandtheperipheriesare‘adjusted’totheserestructurings”(ArestisandSawyer2000).Mbeki(2009),reachingfurtherbackforanalogies,wentsofarastocalltheNorth’scontemporaryrelationshipwithAfricaa“newmercantilism”,thecurrentmineral-exporttradehavingstructuralsimilaritiestotheeighteenth-centuryslavetrade.However,dependencyisnolongerone-way,astherelocationofworldindustrialproductionandthediversityofelitestrategiesintheperipheryshow.Neoliberalismonaworldscaleseemstohaveproducedamorediversifiedandchaoticeconomicprocess,butonethatisfarfromthe“weightlesseconomy”invokedbycommentatorsonfinancialization,sinceitrestsonamassiveweightofmaterialtrade.Andifmarketsocietyhasnotyetproduceditsowngravediggers,ithascertainlyproduceditsparadoxes;notleast,theglobalfreemarket’srelianceonwidespreadpoliticalcoercion.State,society,andcoercionTransactionsofthekindMbekiemphasizesplacethestatestructuresandgoverningelitesoftheperipheryinakeyposition.Whetherneoliberalismhasreallyledtoaretreatofthestateisnowwidelyquestioned.InmuchoftheglobalSouth,themarketagendaseemsrathertohavere-organizedstateelites,andre-structured,sometimestothepointofcrisis,socialarrangementsbetweenthestateandthewiderpopulation.Statesexistedbeforecolonizationinmanypartsoftheworld,asseeninTunisiansocialscientistAbdelkaderZghal’sstudyofthestateintheMaghrib.Zghal(1971)distinguishesbetweenzonesthatwerealwaysunderthecontrolofacentralauthority-referredtoasthemakhzen-andthose,generallynon-urban,zonesoutsidecentralcontrol,eitherinconflictoraccommodationwithit.InArabic,makhzengenerallydenotesawarehouseorstoragedepot.However,intheMaghribtherehasbeenalonghistoricalassociationofthewordwiththecentralauthoritythatcollectedtaxes;inMoroccocurrentusageofthewordoftendenotesthepolice.Colonizationreshapedthesesocialrelationsand,withthedrivetonationalindependence,increasinglybroughtthezonesofdissidenceunderthecontrolofacentralauthority.Inexchange,themakhzenenteredintowhatJamshidi(2011),writingaboutTunisia,callsa“breadcontract”withsociety.Inthis,thepeopletoleratearepressivestateinreturnfortheprovisionofbasicservicesandgoods,andsomeemployment.Stateinterventioninmarketshasbeennormalinmostofthecolonizedandpostcolonialworld.AntonellaAttiliCardamone’s(2010)discussionofstate-ledrestructuringinMexicoisacontemporaryexample.NeoliberalismintheglobalSouthcandrawonalonghistoricaltrajectoryofcoercion.Colonialsocietywasnotsomuchregulatedbythestate,itwasproducedbythestate.Thisoccurredthroughtheviolenceofconquest


11

andtheinstallationofwhatValentineMudimbe(1994)callsthe“colonizingstructure”-theapparatusofrulethatundertookthedominationofspace,theintegrationoflocaleconomiesintoacapitalistworldeconomy,andthere-formingofthenatives’mindsviamissionsandschools.Suchstructureswerecontestedbutnotdestroyedbydecolonization,andtheircontinuityhasunderpinnedthepowerofpost-colonialelites(Mbeki2009;Mohamadieh2008).MbekiarguesthatAfricatodayisruledby“apurelygovernmentclass”parasiticalontherestofthepopulation,actingasconsumersratherthanproducersandemployingstateviolencetostayinpower.AchilleMbembe’scelebratedOnthePostcolony(2001)paintsanevengrimmerpictureofpredatorypost-colonialregimesaidedbyinternationalsupportfortradeandmineralsconcessions.Violence,corruption,andderegulationhaveledto“indirectprivategovernment”,inMbembe’sphrase,wherethestatehaslostitscapacityforredistributionbutcontinuestooperateasaninstrumentofcoercion.Statepoweralsomadepossibletheexportprocessingzones,oftencitedbytheinternationalfinancialinstitutionsascasesofsuccessfulrestructuring.Thesezonesofcapitalaccumulationareestablishedthroughcoalitionsofstateofficials,localbusinesselites,andinternationalcorporateactors(Keshavarzian2010;Nazzal2005;Aggarwal2006).Theyrepresent,like“indirectprivategovernment”,ablurringofpublicandprivatesectorsratherthanaretreatofthestate.Andtheirvalueforbroaderdevelopmentisdebatable.MaryNazzal’s(2005)studyofJordan’sQualifiedIndustrialZonesdemonstratesthatimprovementsinfiscalindicators(growthinGDP,nationaldebtasapercentageofGDP)neednotreflectrealimprovementinlivingconditionsforthemajorityofthepopulation.GlobalneoliberalismhasthusevolvedneworganizationalformsandhascreatedopportunitiesforstateelitesinmanypartsoftheSouth.Butithasalsodisruptedsomeoftheaccommodationsonwhichlocalelitepowerrested,suchasthe“tacitsocialcontracts”betweensocietyandauthoritarianstateinnorthAfrica(Jamshidi2011;Mohamadieh2008).MbembepointsoutforcentralAfricathatthepostcolonialstate,asitceasedtobeaguarantorofprofitsforcolonizers,becameameansofinformalredistributionlocallythroughkinshipandpoliticalnetworks.Buttoneoliberalreformers,especiallythoseintheWorldBank,IMF,andotherinternationalagencies,thesearrangementsappearedascorruption,nepotism,andunproductivestateemployment.Whentheinternationalagencieshadleverage-forinstanceconditionalitiesimposedonloans-theycouldanddidapplypressurefor“goodgovernance”,athemethatemergedstronglyinthe1990saftertheproblemscreatedbythefirstroundofStructuralAdjustmentProgrammes.Thecontradictionsofthestateandneoliberalismintheperipheryareperhapssharpestaroundthesecurityapparatus.AstudyofneoliberalpoliticsacrossLatinAmericapublishedbyaformerUSgovernmentadvisorsomeyearsbeforethecoupinChile,documentsthediffusionofneoliberalideasthroughorganizationsinvolvingbusinessmenandindustrialists.Bailey(1965)classifiestheiractivitiesas“defense”(civicaction,education,andpropagandacampaignspromotingprivateenterprise)and“aggressiveattackpolicies”(blacklistingandinfiltrationofunions,movements,and


12

universities).Whilemilitaryinterventionisnotdirectlyspecifiedunder“attack”activities,thearticlebeginsbycelebratingBrazil’smilitarycoupof1964as‘thegreatestsuccesstheNeoliberalshavehadsofarintheir4or5yearsofexistence’(Bailey1965p.445).OneoftheearliestaccountsofmilitaryneoliberalismisRobertoCalvo’s1979bookLadoctrinamilitardelaseguridadnacional:autoritarismopolíticoyneoliberalismoeconómicoenelConoSur.Histopicwasnottheneoliberalismofself-optimisingindividualsaboutwhichFoucaultwaslecturingatthetimeinParis,butaneconomicstrategyimposedbyforce.CalvoexaminestheshifttowardsauthoritarianruleintheAmericassince1961whenParaguaywasstilla“militaryislandinthemiddleofaseaofciviliangovernments”.Neoliberalismdidnotdrivethisshift,butwaspartoftheanticommunistideologicalmatrixfromwhichmilitaryrulerscouldanddiddraw.Theparticularcombinationofauthoritarianism,politics,andneoliberaleconomicsthatdevelopedwasjustifiedbyanideologyof“nationalsecurity”(Calvo1979,pp.5–13).Inthefaceofstrongpopulistpoliticalmovementsandmassmobilizationinthe1960s,themilitarywaspresentedastheonlygroupcapableofholdingsocietytogether.TheBraziliangeneralJoseAlfredAmaralGurgeldefinednationalsecurityas“theguaranteegivenbythestateforthedefenceofnationalobjectivesinthefaceofexistingantagonismandpressure”(Calvo1979,p.66).Hewasoneofanumberofsouthernconeofficerswhobecameideologistsblendingtheconceptofsecuritywithaconceptofeconomicgrowth;anexampleisa1976articleonthe“TheoryofNationalSecurity”byGeneralAlejandroMedina,aleadingfigureintheChileandictatorship.InmuchoftheArabworld,secularpolicestatesemergedafterIndependenceandsignificantlyshapedsocialformations.InEgypt,Iraq,Syria,Algeria,andLibya,controlofpopularmovementswasseizedbymilitaryleaders.MourinRabbani(2011)notesthattheseregimesdifferedfromtheLatinAmericanmilitaryjuntasandtheSovietblocdictatorshipssincethedemographicsofalargeconscriptarmymademilitaryforceunreliableinthefaceofdomesticopposition.Domesticsecurityagencies(mukhabaratinArabic)grew;theirapproachwastorecruit“everylivingbeingwithintheirrealm”ratherthantoneutralizespecificthreats.Forsimilarreasonstothosethatcurbedthereliabilityofaconscriptarmy,thesecurityforcesdidnotintendlarge-scaleoperationssomuchasdiffusesocialcontrol.Inmanycasesitwasregimesofthiskindthatmettheintensifiedglobalneoliberalismofthe1980s.Toye(1992)notedthatWorldBankStructuralAdjustmentProgrammesofthetimetooknoaccountofthepoliticalcontextorprocess.Indeed,authoritariangovernmentsinTurkey,Ghana,andThailand“adjusted”betterthanmoredemocraticgovernmentswhentheirperformancewasmeasuredbyWorldBankcriteria.Buttheseprogrammescarriedpoliticalriskfortheregimes.Jordan,whichbeganaStructuralAdjustmentProgrammein1989,illustratesthetacticalhandlingofthisrisk.Welfarebudgetswereconsistentlyreducedexceptformilitaryandsecuritypersonnelandtheirfamilies(Nazzal2005;Baylouny2008).Thiswasnotaminorexception,becausetheJordanianmilitaryemploys20%ofthepopulationinruralareas.Thesecurityapparatushadfunctionedasakindofwelfarestateforthesectionsofthepopulationmostcloselylinkedtotheregime-thereforeexcludingthePalestinians-andthesecurityagendaenabledthegovernmenttocontinuetheirbenefitswhile


13

implementingprivatizationandpublicsectorcutselsewhere.Inothercountries,includingtheNewOrderdictatorshipinIndonesia,themilitaryelitebecameownersofbusinessandemployersoflaboronalargescale,directlyinvolvedinnegotiationswithinternationalcapital.ButintheIndonesiancase,theauthoritarianregimecarefullyavoidedtherisksofaturntodomesticneoliberalism.ThecoldwareconomydevelopedunderGeneralSuharto,rather,asawebofmonopolies,subsidies,andcronyarrangements(HadizandRobison2003).Themainfunctionofthemilitaryremainsthedeploymentofforce.IntheArabworld,especiallyaroundtheGulf,militaryexpenditurehasbeencloselylinkedtothegrowthandsecuritizationoftheglobaloilmarket.Asteepriseofarmsimportsandmilitaryexpenditurecoincidedwithoil-priceincreasesfrom1973(Askari2006),andthiswasalsotrueinIran(Mofid1990).Itwasnotonlythattheoilmarketanditscorporateandstateplayershadtobedefended.Thedefenseitselfbecamepartofanexpandedinternationalmarketeconomy.The“recyclingofpetro-dollars”aftertheoilpricerisealloweddirectmilitaryaidfromtheglobalNorthtobereplacedbypurchasesbytheregion’sgovernments,onaverylargescale-oftenmorethanhalftheoilrevenue.TheGulfmonarchies,unlikeseveralregimesinnorthAfrica,managedtoputdownunrestduringtheArabSpring.ThethemesraisedbyZghal,Mbeki,Mbembe,Calvo,andotherwritersareimportantforanunderstandingofneoliberalism.Theglobalmarketeconomydoesrelyextensivelyoncoercion.Butthisdoesnothappeninaconsistentway.Themakhzenintheformofanauthoritarianregimecanfunctionlikeafirminglobalmarkets,thoughmoreoftenlikealandlordextractingrentfromtheoperationsoftransnationalcapital.ThemilitarywereimportantsponsorsofIRIstrategiesatleastuptothe1970s(thatispartoftheBrasilianandTurkishstories);butcouldalsoprovidethecoerciontospeedtheturntoneoliberalism(Chilein1974,Turkeyin1980).Militaryandpoliceforcesdisciplinethelow-paidandinsecureworkforcesneededbycomparative-advantagestrategies;butasthedilemmasofthemukhabaratshow,therearelimitstohowfarthiscanbepushed.Land,agriculture,andinformalityThesearchforcomparativeadvantage,themostconsistentthemeinneoliberalismasadevelopmentstrategy,immediatelyinvolvedlandandagriculture,soruralsocietybulkslargeinSoutherndiscussionsofneoliberalism.Wheretherewerelargeruralpopulations,landreformhadbeenakeytenetofpost-independenceplanning,withagendasoftencombininglandredistributionwiththecentralizationofagrarianadministrationandtrade.Tradeliberalisationagreementssincethe1980s,andearlierinsomeplaces,havereshapedagriculturalproductionintheSouth,impactingsmall-holderfarmersandruralpopulationsandcontributingtolarge-scalesocialchange.Agrarianreformprojectsthatredistributedlandtopeasantsandcooperativeswereimportantprogramsformanygovernmentsofdevelopingstates(Bellisario2007;GomezandGoldfrank1991;GutiérrezSanín2010;Amin2006).Thiswasrarelyasmoothprocess.Zghal(1971,1985),documentingagrarianreformintheMaghribfollowingthewarsofindependence,arguesthereformsfailedbecausepeasantswanted


14

propertyandautonomy,whilepost-colonialstatepowersoughtbeneficiariesandpupilswhocouldbetrainedtoplayanactiveroleinstate-directednationalfoodproduction.Insomecases,thefailureofpost-independencenationaldevelopmenttobreakawayfromthemodelofcolonialstatepowerledtoarapidde-peasantizationofthecountryside.Amin(2006)presentsasimilarargument.Thecolonialregimes,forinstanceintropicalAfrica,hadapreferenceforstateadministeredlandbecausethisminimizedproductioncostsforcommodityexports,includingrents,andmaximizedproductionbyforcingpeasantstoproducetoquota.Thenationalizationofstatelandfollowingindependencewasinsomewaysaproductofthiscolonialsystem.Attemptsatreformoftenfavoredsmallprivateownership,theallocationofplotstopeasantsindividually.Wherecollectiveproductionwaspursued(e.g.,state-administeredagriculturalproductioninChinaandVietnam)itwasunderthebannerofrejectingprivateownershipwhileexpandingaccesstoland.Inbothcasestraditionalformsofaccesstolandwereruptured,whilecollectiveproductionwasimbuedwiththelegacyofcolonialstatepower.Neoliberallandreformthenfocussedonacceleratingprivateownershipoflandinthenameofdemocratizingtheauthoritarianexcessesofstateownership.InChile,themilitarycoupof1973ledtoapartialreversaloflandreform,withsome33%oflandthathadbeendistributedtopeasantsandcooperativesnowreturnedtoitspreviousowners.Bellisario(2007)arguesthatthis“counter-reform”waspartialbecausethedictatorshipdidnotwanttohandpowerbacktothetraditionalruralelites.GarretónMerino(1989)andValdés(1995)botharguethatthecivil-militarydictatorshiphadindeeda“foundational”programofconstructinganeweconomyandsociety.Itintendedtobuildanewlandedclassthroughadevelopmentagendatoproduceatwotieredagriculturaleconomy,composedofanagribusinesssectorformedbylargelandowners,andsmallerpeasantfamilyunits.Thetwo-tiersystemassumedthatmanyofthesmallerfarmswouldfailandbeabsorbedintolarger,competitivestructures,eventuallyproducinganopenlandmarketwithamodernized,capitalist-orientedagriculture(Bellisario2007).GomezandGoldfrank(1991)observethatagrarianreformunderthedictatorshiphastenedthemovefromtheearlierhaciendasystemtowardsanagro-industrialcomplexorientedtoexportmarketsaswellaslocalproduction.Theintegrationofagricultureintotheworldeconomydidnotmeantheendofgovernmentsubsidies—ratheritmeanttheendofassistancetosmall-scalefarmers.Followingtheeconomiccrisisof1981–1982,theregimebolsteredtheagriculturesectorwithpricesupportsthatfavoredexport-orientedcorporateagricultureattheexpenseofsmallfarms.Restructuringofagriculturehasbeenasignificantfeatureofneoliberalism’sdevelopmentstrategyacrosstheglobalSouth.Butthishasbeeninthecontextofthedecliningeconomicweightofagriculture.AgriculturalrevenueasapercentageofglobalGDPhassteadilydeclinedfrom6.5%in1980toreach2.8%in2010(www.databank.worldbank.org).IntheglobalSouth,declinesinagriculture’sshareofGDPhavebeengreater.InTurkey,revenuefromagriculturedeclinedfrom26.5%in1980to9.7%in2010.InIndia,thosefigureswere35.4%to17.7%forthesameperiod(www.databank.worldbank.org).Therehasbeenadeclineinemploymentinagriculture,assmallfarmersaredisadvantagedbyrisinginputpricesandinstitutionalchanges(Aydin2010;Amanor2002;Zurayk2000).


15

Theconsequencesofthemainneoliberalmeasuresinagriculture—removalofpricesupports,theentryoftransnationalcorporationsandtheintegrationofdomesticproductionintoglobaltrade—havebeenextremelyvaried.ZulkufAydin(2010)detailstheimpactoftheintegrationofTurkishsugar,dairy,andtobaccoproductionintotheglobaleconomy.Thediversityoflandholdingshasbeenreduced,despitethestatedintentionsofthereforms,andasignificantdeclineindomesticagriculturalproductioninallsectorshasfollowed.IntheIvoryCoast,cocoaproductiontraditionallymanagedbystatemonopolyinstitutionswastakenoverbytransnationalcorporationsintheaftermathofausteritymeasuresin1989.InGhana,thedemiseofsmallholderpineappleproductionforexportwastheresultofglobalmarketcompetitionemanatingfromtheintroductionofanewvarietyofpineappleinCostaRica(Amanor2012).AstudyofagriculturalliberalisationinthePhilippinesdemonstratesthatoveralltariffreductionsfrom63%in1980tobelow10%by2003havenotledtoeconomicgrowthandlong-termstabilizationofproductivesectors(Paderon2005).Evenwheretherehasbeenagrowthinagriculturalexports,thetradebalanceofthissectorhasgenerallybeennegative(DelaCruz2005).InIndia,theremovalofgovernmentsupportstructuresforsmall-scalefarmershasbeenfollowedbysoaringlevelsofdebtandbankruptcyinruralcommunities,andevenarecentepidemicofsuicide(Chatterjee2008;Sathe2011;BaviskarandSundar2008).Closelyassociatedwiththechangesinagricultureandmigrationtocities,andamajorfeatureofneoliberalrealityintheSouth,hasbeenthegrowthoftheinformaleconomy.AcarefulstudyinTunisia(BoughzalaandKouki2003),basedonnationalsurveydata,foundabouthalfthecountry’slaborforceemployedintheinformalsector.Enterprisesintheinformalsectorwererelativelysmall,paidmuchlesstax,producedmostlynon-tradableservices(e.g.,building,localtransport,personalservices),didnotfollowlaborlaws,didnotkeeprecords,demandedlonghours,andhadlittlecapitalandlowlevelsofskill.Jamshidi(2011)notestheunstablerelationswiththestate,especiallywiththepolice,thatresultfromlargepartsofthepopulationhavingtosurvivebyillicitwork.ThefruitandvegetablesellerMohammadBouazizi,whosesuicidetriggeredtherisingagainsttheBenAliregimethatlaunchedtheArabSpring,wasoneofthem.InIndia,ruralunemploymentrateshavebeenrisingsincethe1990salongsideanincreaseinnon-agriculturalemploymentamongruralinhabitants(Gupta2005).ThedrivetosecurealivelihoodbydisplacedandunderemployedmassesisabasisforParthaChatterjee’s(2008)conceptof“politicalsociety”.LikeBoughzalaandKouki,Chatterjeeidentifiesadifferentpatternofrelationshipsintheinformalsector,basedon“non-corporatecapital”.Unliketheformaleconomy,thissectorisnotgovernedbythedriveforaccumulation,butbythelogicoflivelihood.Strugglesheretaketheformofpoliticalmobilizationsonextremelyvariedbases,notthefamiliarpatternsofclassrelations.Chatterjeecontraststhiswiththerealmofthestate,thecorporateeconomy,andcivilsocietyasunderstoodinEuropeansocialtheory.HismodelhasbeenvigorouslydebatedinIndiaandisdoubtlesstooschematic.Butitdoestheorizeapolarizationofsocialformsthatcanbeseeninotherregionstoo.Ithelpstoexplaintheworldpatterningofmarketsociety,withglobalizingcorporateeconomyandmiddleclassesbutalsoexpandinginformaleconomies.


16

Thegrowthofinformalpracticesextendsbeyond“work”.AsefBayat(2004)hasdocumentedtheeverydaypracticesoffamiliesinCairounderneoliberalrestructuring.Unabletochallengethereformspoliticallyoradjustfinanciallytorisinglivingcosts,familieswouldundertake“individualandquietdirectaction,insteadofcollectivedecision-making”,tomakeendsmeet.Tacticsincludetappingintoelectricityandwatersupplies.AccordingtoacasestudyoftheAlexandriaWaterCompany,onemillioncubicmetresofwatergounaccountedforinthecityeachday.BilledatthestandardpriceofEGP0.73percubicmeter,thecostofunpaidwaterwouldcometoapproximatelyEGP266million,orUSD44.5million,peryear.Thisfigureisactuallyhigherthantheofficialfigureforbilledwatertariffs(USAID2005).InEgypt,professionalservicesarealsosuppliedinformally:asubstantialillegalprivateteachingsectorexists.Theinformalnetworkof“streetlawyers”,practitionerswithoutlawdegreeswhooperateillegally,isalsohighlycompetitive.These“non-legalurbanarrangements”highlighttheeconomicandsocialvalueofwhatIndiansociologistRaviSundaram(2010)calls“piratenetworks”intheglobalSouthwheretheformaleconomyremainsoutofreachforalargepartofthepopulation.Theinformaleconomyisimportanteveninneoliberalism’ssuccesses.JaafarAksikas(2007)describestheexpansionoftheinformalsectorinMoroccotoconstituteabouthalftheurbaneconomy,andarguesthatithasbeennecessarytotheofficialeconomy,providingoutsourcingforexport-orientedfirms,low-pricedservices,andmore.Thevividethnographyofwomengarmentworkersinnorth-westernTurkeybyKumbetogluetal.(2010)showsfierceexploitationofavulnerablegroupinthesemi-legalbackgroundofanexport-orientedindustry.Therearemanysimilarstudiesofdevastatinglaborconditionsinplaceswherethecomparativeadvantageislowlaborcosts.IntellectualsfromtheSouthhavedrawnattentiontoanotherfeatureofinformaleconomiesinaneoliberalenvironment,thegrowthofcriminalbusiness.TheclothingfactoriesdocumentedbyKumbetogluetal.operatepartlyoutsidethelaw,evadinginspectionandregulation.Illicitenterprisesandpolicecorruptionareeverydayexperiencesinthelifeoftheborderregionofpost-NAFTAMexico(VelascoOrtizandContreras2011).Aksikas(2007)notesthatsmugglingwastraditionalbusinessinnorthernMoroccoandisstilllarge-scale.FatmalkuSelçuk(2011)takesastepfurtherandarguesthatmilitaryinterventionandstructuraladjustmentinTurkeycreatedtheconditionsforamafiosocapitalism,whoseentrepreneursoverlapwiththeconventionalbourgeoisiealthoughtheirpowerdependsonarmedforce.SelçukalsoreferstoRussia,wheretherestorationofneoliberalcapitalisminthe1990screatedsimilarconditionsonalargerscale.Mbembe(2001)suggestsabroadcriminalizationofelites,aswellastheemergenceofautonomousandveryviolentwarmachines,inpost-structural-adjustmentcentralandwesternAfrica.ThearmedbandsintheAlgeriancivilwarofthe1990smutated,astheeconomyaroundthemwasderegulated,intoarmedentrepreneursinvolvedinillicittrade(Martinez2000).TheexpansionofnarcotraficoincentralAmericaisawellknownstory.ThedrugcartelsofColombiaandMexicoareboomingexport-orientedenterprisesindevelopingcountries,withremarkableentrepreneurialflair.Neoliberalscanbeproudofthem,apartfromtheregrettableprevalenceofmurders.


17

Land,agriculture,ruralsociety,informality,andcriminalbusinessarenotmajorthemesintheNorthernliteratureonneoliberalism.InSouthernperspectivetheycanbeseen,notjustasrelicsofthepast,butassitesofdevelopmentstrategyandsocialchange,keystothegrowthofmega-citiesandinformaleconomies,andstakesinpoliticalstruggle.Conclusion:changingthelensforseeingneoliberalismonaworldscaleFortyyearsaftertheChileancoup,30yearsafterThatcherandReagan,20yearsafterthepeakoftheWashingtonconsensus,and5yearsaftertheglobalfinancialcrisis,neoliberalismhascertainlychanged.Ithasbeenextensivelycontested;theWorldSocialForumandthe“crisisofneoliberalhegemony”inLatinAmerica(Sader2008b)areamongthevisiblepoliticaleffects.Buttheworldwideextensionofmarketlogiccontinues,witheducationcurrentlyatthecuttingedge—throughinternationalleaguetablesforschools,corporatizationofuniversities,restructuringofteachingworkforces,andtheredefinitionofeducationsystemsasexportindustriespursuingcomparativeadvantage(ComptonandWeiner2008).ThisarticleisanefforttoshowtheenrichedunderstandingofneoliberalismthatbecomespossiblewhenthesocialexperienceandintellectualproductionoftheglobalSoutharegivenpriority.Tobeveryclear:wearenottryingtobuildasingleSouthernmodelofneoliberalismtodisplacetheNorthernones.Rather,weintendtoshow,andpartlymap,aterrainofknowledge,debate,andtheorythatalreadyexistsandhasitsownconcernsandemphases.WhereNortherntheorieshavelaidgreatemphasisonfinancialization,eventsintheperipheryshowtheimportance,atleastequal,ofthereshapingandexpansionofglobaltrade.Thedebateontheroleofthestatehastobere-thoughtdrasticallywhenpostcolonialdevelopmentalstatesareplacedcentrallyintheframe.Thevaryingpopularsupportforneoliberalregimesandthesocialcoalitionssupportingderegulationlookdifferentwhenneoliberalismisunderstoodcentrallyasadevelopmentstrategy.Thekeyarenasofneoliberalactionincludeagriculture,andthemajorsocialeffectsincludetheaccelerateddeclineofpeasantsocietyandthemassivegrowthofinformaleconomiesinthecitiesofthemajorityworld.Amongtheissuestobere-thoughtisthepoliticallycriticalquestionofwhobenefitsfromneoliberalismandhow.Itisfamiliarthatindicesofeconomicinequalitytendtoriseunderneoliberalrule.SurveysofLatinAmericanandCaribbeancountrieshavegenerallyfoundthis,andthecountriesthatwentthroughradicalneoliberalreformpackagesshowedgreaterincreasesininequality(HuberandSolt2004;Vellinga2002).AnotableillustrationofthedifficultyofmovingintheotherdirectionistheJusticeandDevelopmentParty(AKP),whichhasruledTurkeysince2002,combiningneoliberalismwithamoderateIslamism—oneofthemostsuccessfulneoliberalpartiesintheworld.TheAKPcametopowerinasurgeofprotest,withruralsupportandredistributiveintentions,thoughnotadetailedprogram(CosarandÖzman2004).Ingovernment,theactualpoliciesfollowedmeanthatlittleredistributionhashappened;thegroupswhoprovidedtheelectoralmandatehavenotbeentheeconomicbeneficiaries.Broadly,itseemstheopeningtoglobalinvestmentandtradehasconcentratedthe


18

benefitsofgrowthmoretightly.Thisisobviouswherethedevelopmentoccursinenclaves,whetherexportprocessingzones,touristsites(Hazbun2004),remotemines(Mbeki2009),orbusinessparks(Bogaert2012).Anotherstraightforwardreasonforinequalityhasbeentheriseofunemployment,whenpublicsectorjobshavebeendrasticallyreduced,asinAlgeria’sshifttowardsneoliberalisminthe1990s(Testas2004).Moresubtly,theshiftsinpoweramongfractionsoftheowningclassthataccompanydependentintegrationintotheworldeconomy,asarguedbyArmandoBoito(2007)inBrasil,concentratedprofitsinthefinancialsectorandenabledproperty-ownersgenerallytoresisttheredistributiveeffortsoflabormovements.Themainneoliberalmechanismsofdevelopmentareinstitutionallyfocussed,longdistancetradebeingaprimecase.Developmentaidprograms,afterthefirstwaveofstructuraladjustmentpolicies,increasinglyemphasised“goodgovernance”and“transparency”indevelopingeconomies,i.e.thefollowingofformalprotocolsofownership,auditing,andcompliancewithlaw.Withthenotableexceptionofcriminalbusinesses,neoliberalgrowthstrategiestendtoconcentratebenefitsamongthosewhohaveaccesstotheformaleconomy,andthusreinforcethestructuraldivisiontheorizedbyChatterjee.Northernmodelsofneoliberalism,nevertheless,continuetocirculatewidelyintheSouth,notonlyinacademiclife(inaccordancewiththeestablishedglobaleconomyofknowledge)butalsoinsocialmovements.NorthernintellectualssuchasChomskyandNegrihavebeeniconicfiguresforthealter-globalizationmovementandforOccupy.AnarrativethatmakesneoliberalismaNortherninventionimposedontheSouthcanbeusefultopoliticianswhopainttheirdomesticopponentsaspuppetsofWashington.Southern-orientedanalysesofneoliberalismare,thus,potentiallydisturbingfortheLeft,aswellasforneoliberals.Resistancetoneoliberalismisnotamatterofthrowingoutanalienintrusion,butrequiresdeeperlocalsocialpolitics.Thisproblemisconnectedwiththehabitinanalysesofneoliberalism,notedearlierinthisarticle,ofseparatingthetheoryfromthepractice,andtreatingthemakingofmarketsocietyonthegroundasthe(imperfect)enactmentofapre-formedideologicaltemplate.ThisisparticularlyunfortunatewhenthinkingaboutneoliberalismintheglobalSouth,asitdownplaystheagencyofSouthernactorsintheformationoftheneoliberalorder.Anadequateunderstandingofmarketsocietyonaworldscalewillpaycloseattentiontotherootsofneoliberalisminthedilemmasofpost-colonialdevelopmentandstatepower.Itwilladdressthelarge-scalesocialandculturalchanges,manyofthemunintended,thathavealreadyflowedfromintegrationintoworldmarketsandconditionthefurtherevolutionofneoliberalpolitics.Theworldhistoryofneoliberalismisahistoryfrombelow,ahistoryofpractices,morethananythingelse.Ourcaseforchangingthelensthroughwhichweviewneoliberalismis,finally,aboutthenatureofthesocial-scientificlensesthemselves.Thesubstantiveandpoliticalissuesaremixedwithepistemologicalissues.WenotedatthestartofthisarticlethecontemporarycritiquesofNortherndominanceintheglobaleconomyofknowledge.Buildingamoreadequateunderstandingofworldmarketsocietyisnotjustaquestion


19

ofstudyingdifferencesinhowamarketagendahasbeenrolledout.Itconcernstheintellectualworkrequiredtotheorizedifferentexperiencesoftheproductionofsociallife,differenthistoriesofpoweranddevelopment.Landreformandstatepowerarekeysiteswherethehistoricalandgeographicalspecificityofpostcolonialsocietyrequiresrevisionoffamiliarconcepts.TheviolentandrepressiveimplementationofneoliberalpoliciesinsubstantialpartsoftheglobalSouthcannotbeseensimplyasagenealogicalvariationfromadominantnarrative.Rather,thismustbeapproachedasakeysiteofdifferencethathasproducedembodiedandlocatedaccountsofstatepowerbasedonspecifichistoriesoftransition(Mignolo2007;Sader2008a).Thesehistoricalandgeographicaldissonancesmustnowbebuiltintotheconceptualandtheoreticalbaseofsociologicalknowledgeproduction.Suchworkdoesnothappeninavacuum.Thinkingaboutworldwidetheoreticalchangerequiresustothinksociologicallyaboutthelaborinvolvedandtheintellectualworkerswhodoit.TheconditionsofintellectualworkinmanypartsoftheSouthareverydifferentfromthoseinthecentersoftheoryintheNorth,intermsoffunding,technology,audience,andinstitutionalbases(see,e.g.,Mkandawire2005).Theapproachforwhichwearearguingvalidateslocalproductionsoftheoryandemphasizeslinksbetweensocialmovementsandlocallyknowledgeableintellectualwork.Thisisnot,however,anargumentforknowledgeproductioninlocalsilos.Itisanargumentformovingbeyondtheself-referentialityofNorthernsocialscienceandtheextraversionofintellectualworkintheperiphery—formovingtowardsamoredemocraticstructureoftheoryonaworldscale,inwhichSouth/SouthlinksmultiplyandasteadyflowoftheoryfromSouthtoNorthbecomespossible.Suchideasarenotnew,buttheyhaveanewurgencyandscopeintheneoliberalera.Theoriesofneoliberalisminthefuturewilllookdifferentfromthosemostfamiliartoday,willbegeneratedfromdifferentsites,andwillbegloballyinclusiveinnewways.Andthatwillbeimportantforpolitics.AcknowledgmentsThisworkwassupportedbytheAustralianResearchCouncil’sdiscoveryprojectgrantDP110102372,“Themakingofmarketsocietyonaworldscale”.Wearegratefulforadvicefrommanycolleagues,especiallyinthereadinggroupassociatedwiththeproject,andatannualconferencesofTheAustralianSociologicalAssociation.ReferencesAggarwal,A.(2006).Specialeconomiczones:revisitingthepolicydebate.EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,41(43–44),4533–4536.Aksikas,J.(2007).Prisonersofglobalization:marginality,communityandthenewinformaleconomyinMorocco.MediterraneanPolitics,12(2),249–262.Alatas,S.F.(2006).AlternativediscoursesinAsiansocialscience:Responsestoeurocentrism.NewDelhi:Sage.Amanor,K.S.(2012).Globalresourcegrabs,agribusinessconcentrationandthesmallholder:twowestAfricancases.JournalofPeasantStudies,39(3–4),731–749.


20

Amin,S.(2006).Globalizationandtheagrarianquestion:Peasants’conflictsAfricaandAsia.InB.N.Ghosh&H.M.Guven(Eds.),Globalizationandthethirdworld:Astudyofnegativeconsequences(pp.165-181).London:PalgraveMacmillan.Amin,S.(2012)Liberalcapitalism,cronycapitalismandlumpendevelopment.PambazukaNews,21November2012,athttp://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/85513.Arestis,P.,&Sawyer,M.(Eds.).(2000).Abiographicaldictionaryofdissentingeconomists.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishing.Askari,H.(2006).MiddleEastoilexporters:Whathappenedtoeconomicdevelopment.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishing.Aydin,Z.(2010).Neo-liberaltransformationofTurkishagriculture.JournalofAgrarianChange,10(2),149-187.Bailey,N.A.(1965).TheColombian“blackhand”:acasestudyofneoliberalisminLatinAmerica.ReviewofPolitics,27(4),445–464.Banerjee,S.(2010)Whosedevelopment!ThepoliticaleconomyoflandgrabunderSEZandassociatedcosts.In:CounterCurrents.Availableat:www.countercurrents.org(accessed5July2012).Baviskar,A.,&Sundar,N.(2008).Democracyversuseconomictransformation?(ResponsetoChatterjee).EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,43(46),15–21.Bayat,A.(2004).Thequietencroachmentoftheordinary.Tamáss:ContemporaryArabrepresentations.Barcelona:FundacíoAntoniTàpies.Baylouny,A.M.(2008).Militarizingwelfare:Neo-liberalismandJordanianpolicy.MiddleEastJournal,62(2),277–303.Bellisario,A.(2007).TheChileanagrariantransformation:agrarianreformandcapitalist‘partial’counteragrarianreform1964–1980.JournalofAgrarianChange,7(1),1–34.Bhambra,G.K.(2007).Sociologyandpostcolonialism:another‘missing’revolution?Sociology,41(5),871–884.Bogaert,K.(2012).NewstatespaceformationinMorocco:theexampleoftheBouregregValley.UrbanStudies,49(2),255–270.Boito,A.(2007).ClassrelationsinBrazil’snewneoliberalphase.LatinAmericanPerspectives,34(5),115–131.Boughzala,M.,&Kouki,M.(2003).Unemploymentpersistenceandtheinformalsector.WorkingPaper0326,EconomicResearchForum,Cairo.


21

Bourdieu,P.(1998).Theessenceofneoliberalism:utopiaofendlessexploitation.LeMondeDiplomatique,December1998.Braedley,S.,&Luxton,M.(Eds.).(2010).Neoliberalismandeverydaylife.Montreal:McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress.Cahill,D.,Edwards,L.,&Stilwell,F.(Eds.).(2012).Neoliberalism:Beyondthefreemarket.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.Calvo,R.(1979).LaDoctrinaMilitardelaSeguridadNacional:Autoritarismopoliticoyouneoliberalismoeconomicoenelconosur.Caracas:UniversidadCatolicaAndresBelloCardamone,A.(2010).Haciaunnuevoorden?Perspectivaglobalypolíticatransnacional.InA.HernándezdeGant,A.Gimate-Welsh,&M.AlcántraSáenz(Eds.),LareconfiguraciónneoliberalenAméricaLatina(pp.97–117).Puebla:BeneméritaUniversidadAutónoma.Chakrabarty,D.(2000).ProvincializingEurope:Postcolonialthoughtandhistoricaldifference.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Chatterjee,P.(2008).DemocracyandeconomictransformationinIndia.EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,43(16),53–62.Chester,L.(2012).TheAustralianvariantofneoliberalcapitalism.InD.Cahill,L.Edwards,&F.Stilwell(Eds.),Neoliberalism:Beyondthefreemarket(pp.153–179).Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.Compton,M.,&Weiner,L.(Eds.).(2008).Theglobalassaultonteaching,teachers,andtheirunions:Storiesforresistance.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.Connell,R.(2007).Southerntheory:Theglobaldynamicsofknowledgeinsocialscience.Sydney:Allen&Unwin;Cambridge:PolityPress.Connell,R.(2012).Thepoetofautonomy:AntonioNegriasasocialtheorist.Sociologica(Italy,online).doi:10.2383/36905.Cosar,S.,&Özman,A.(2004).Centre-rightpoliticsinTurkeyaftertheNovember2002generalelection:neoliberalismwithaMuslimface.ContemporaryPolitics,10(1),57–74.Cudahy,B.J.(2006).Boxboats:Howcontainershipschangedtheworld.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.Dados,N.,&Connell,R.(2012).TheglobalSouth.Contexts[AmericanSociologicalAssociation],11(1),12–13.DelaCruz,L.J.R.(2005).Philippineagriculturalperformanceintheageofacceleratedliberalization.InL.J.R.delaCruz&M.M.A.Paderon(Eds.),Agriculturalliberalization


22

inthePhilippines:Policyhistoryandcompetingperspectives(pp.80–88).Manila:InstituteofPhilippineCulture.Dean,M.(2012).Freeeconomy,strongstate.InD.Cahill,L.Edwards,&F.Stilwell(Eds.),Neoliberalism:Beyondthefreemarket(pp.69–89).Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.Douglas,R.,&Callan,L.(1987).Towardprosperity.Auckland:DavidBateman.Drake,P.W.(2006).ThehegemonyofU.S.economicdoctrinesinLatinAmerica.InE.Hershberg&F.Rosen(Eds.),LatinAmericaAfterNeoliberalism:TurningtheTideinthe21stCentury?(pp.26–48).NewYork:NewPress/NACLA.Duménil,G.,&Lévy,D.(2004).Capitalresurgent:Rootsoftheneoliberalrevolution.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.Foucault,M.(2004).Thebirthofbiopolitics:LecturesattheCollegedeFrance1978–1979.Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.TranslatedbyGrahamBurchell.Friedman,M.(1962).CapitalismandFreedom.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Furtado,C.(1974).OMitodoDesenvolvimentoEconômico.RiodeJaneiro:PazeTerra.GarretónMerino,M.A.(1989).TheChileanpoliticalprocess.Winchester:UnwinHyman.Gomez,S.,&Goldfrank,W.L.(1991).Worldmarketandagrariantransformation:thecaseofneo-liberalChile.InternationalJournalofSociologyofAgricultureandFood,1,143–150.Gupta,D.(2005).WhithertheIndianvillage:cultureandagricultureinruralIndia.EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,40(8),751–758.GutiérrezSanín,F.(2010).Colombia:Therestructuringofviolence.InF.GutiérrezSanín&G.Schönwälder(Eds.),Economicliberalizationandpoliticalviolence(pp.209–244).London:PlutoPress.Hadiz,V.R.,&Robison,R.(2003).Neo-liberalreformsandilliberalconsolidations:theIndonesianparadox.WorkingPaper,SoutheastAsiaResearchCentreNo.52,CityUniversityofHongKong.Hardt,M.,&Negri,A.(2000).Empire.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.Harvey,D.(2005).Abriefhistoryofneoliberalism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Haseler,S.(2000).Thesuper-rich:Theunjustnewworldofglobalcapitalism.London:Macmillan.


23

Hazbun,W.(2004).Globalisation,reterritorialisationandthepoliticaleconomyoftourismdevelopmentintheMiddleEast.Geopolitics,9(2),310–341.Hountondji,P.J.(Ed.)(1997[1994]).Endogenousknowledge:Researchtrails.Dakar:CODESRIA.Huber,E.,&Solt,F.(2004).Successesandfailuresofneoliberalism.LatinAmericanResearchReview,39(3),150–164.Jamshidi,M.(2011)Thepowerofone:TheTunisian“revolt”,neoliberaleconomics,andanewparadigmforpoliticalaction.In:Muftah.Availableat:http://muftah.org(accessed20January2011).Kay,C.(1998).Estructuralismoyteoríadeladependenciaenelperiodoneoliberal:unaperspectivalatinoamericana.NuevaSociedad,158,100–119.Keshavarzian,A.(2010).GeopoliticsandthegenealogyoffreetradezonesinthePersiangulf.Geopolitics,15(2),263–289.Klein,N.(2007).Theshockdoctrine:Theriseofdisastercapitalism.London:Penguin.Kumbetoglu,B.,User,I.,&Akpinar,A.(2010).Unregisteredwomenworkersintheglobalizedeconomy:aqualitativestudyinTurkey.FeministFormations,22(3),96–123.Larner,W.(2000).Neo-liberalism:policy,ideology,governmentality.StudiesinPoliticalEconomy,63,5–25.Lee,C.K.(1998).GenderandtheSouthChinamiracle:Twoworldsoffactorywomen.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Levinson,M.(2006).Thebox:Howtheshippingcontainermadetheworldsmallerandtheworldeconomybigger.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Mallorquín,C.(2007).CelsoFurtadoanddevelopment:anoutline.DevelopmentinPractice,17(6),807–819.Martinez,L.(2000).TheAlgeriancivilwar1990–1998.London:Hurst&Co.Mbeki,M.(2009).Architectsofpoverty:WhyAfricancapitalismneedschanging.Johannesburg:PicadorAfrica.Mbembe,A.(2001).Onthepostcolony.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Meekosha,H.(2011).Decolonizingdisability:thinkingandactingglobally.DisabilityandSociety,26(6),667–681.Mignolo,W.D.(2007).Delinking.CulturalStudies,21(2/3),449–514.


24

Mkandawire,T.(2005).Africanintellectuals:Rethinkingpolitics,language,genderanddevelopment.Dakar:CODESRIABooks;London:ZedBooks.Mofid,K.(1990).Theeconomicconsequencesofthegulfwar.London:Routledge.Mohamadieh,K.(2008).LiberalisationcurtailssocialandeconomicrightsintheArabregion.SocialWatch.December2008.Montero,M.(2007).Thepoliticalpsychologyofliberation:frompoliticstoethicsandback.PoliticalPsychology,28(5),517–533.Moulian,T.(2002).Chileactual:Anatomíadeunmito(3rded.).Santiago:LOM.Mudge,S.L.(2008).Whatisneo-liberalism?Socio-EconomicReview,6(4),703–731.Mudimbe,V.Y.(1994).TheideaofAfrica.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.Nazzal,M.(2005).EconomicreforminJordan:Ananalysisofstructuraladjustmentandqualifiedindustrialzones.In:Landanddevelopment.Availableat:www.landanddevelopment.org.Accessed20January2011.Negri,A.(1973).Reformismandrestructuration:Terrorismofthestate-as-factory-command.InRedNotes(Ed.),(1979)workingclassautonomyandthecrisis(pp.33–37).London:RedNotes.Negri,A.(1977).Laformastato.Milan:Feltrinelli.OdoraHoppers,C.A.(Ed.).(2002).Indigenousknowledgeandtheintegrationofknowledgesystems.Claremont:NewAfricaBooks.Oliver,H.M.,Jr.(1960).Germanneoliberalism.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics,74(1),117–149.Ong,A.(2006).Neoliberalismasexception:Mutationsincitizenshipandsovereignty.Durham:DukeUP.Ozel,I.(2003).Beyondtheorthodoxparadox:thebreakupofstate-businesscoalitionsin1980sTurkey.JournalofInternationalAffairs,57(1),97–112.Paderon,M.M.A.(2005).AgriculturaltradeliberalisationpoliciesfromMarcostoMacapagal-Arroyo.InL.J.R.delaCruz&M.M.A.Paderon(Eds.),AgriculturalliberalizationinthePhilippines:Policyhistoryandcompetingperspectives(pp.5–38).Manila:InstituteofPhilippineCulture.Patel,S.(Ed.).(2010).ISAhandbookofdiversesociologicaltraditions.London:Sage.Peck,J.,Theodore,N.,&Brenner,N.(2009).Neoliberalurbanism:models,moments,mutations.SAISReview,29(1),49–66.


25

Phillips,N.(2004).Thesouthernconemodel:ThepoliticaleconomyofregionalcapitalistdevelopmentinLatinAmerica.London:Routledge.Power,M.(1999).Theauditsociety.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Prebisch,R.(1964).Towardsanewtradepolicyfordevelopment:Reportbythesecretary-generaloftheUnitedNationsconferenceontradeanddevelopment.NewYork:UnitedNationsPusey,M.(1991).EconomicrationalisminCanberra:Anation-buildingstatechangesitsmind.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.Quijano,A.(2000).ColonialityofpowerandeurocentrisminLatinAmerica.InternationalSociology,15(2),215–232.Rabbani,M.(2011).Thesecuritizationofpoliticalrule:SecuritydominationofArabregimesandtheprospectsfordemocratization.Perspectives:PoliticalAnalysisandCommentaryfromtheMiddleEast,2(May),258–262.Reuter,J.,&Villa,P.I.(Eds.).(2010).PostkolonialeSoziologie:EmpirischeBefunde,theoretischeAnschlusse,politischeIntervention.Bielefeld:Transcript.Rieter,H.,&Schmolz,M.(1993).TheideasofGermanOrdoliberalism1938–45:pointingthewaytoaneweconomicorder.TheEuropeanJournaloftheHistoryofEconomicThought,1(1),87–114.Robinson,W.I.(2001).Socialtheoryandglobalization:theriseofatransnationalstate.Theory&Society,30(2),157–200.Sader,E.(2008a).PosneoliberalismoenAmericaLatina.BuenosAires:Inst.deestudiosyformaciónCTA.Sader,E.(2008b).Theweakestlink?NeoliberalisminLatinAmerica.NewLeftReview,52,5–31.Santos,B.deS.(2007).AnotherKnowledgeisPossible:BeyondNorthernEpistemologies.London:Verso.Sathe,D.(2011).PoliticaleconomyoflandanddevelopmentinIndia.EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,46(29),151–155.Selçuk,F.U.(2011).Therisingmafiosocapitalists,opportunities,andthecaseofTurkey.Capital&Class,35(2),275–293.Silva,P.(1987).Estado,neoliberalismoypolíticaagrarianenChile1973–1981.Amsterdam:CEDLER.Silva,P.(1988).Thestate,politicsandpeasantunionsinChile.JournalofLatinAmericanStudies,20(2),433–452.


26

Silva,E.(1996).ThestateandcapitalinChile:Businesselites,technocrats,andmarketeconomics.BoulderColorado:WestviewPress.Smart,B.(2003).Economy,cultureandsociety:Asociologicalcritiqueofneo-liberalism.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Smith,L.T.(1999).Decolonizingmethodologies:Researchandindigenouspeoples.London:ZedBooks.StatisticsSouthAfrica.(2013)Quarterlylabourforcesurvey,quarter2,2013.StatisticalReleaseP0211,30July2013.Pretoria:StatisticsSouthAfrica.Stiglitz,J.E.(2002).Globalizationanditsdiscontents.London:Penguin.Sundaram,R.(2010).Piratemodernity:Delhi’smediaurbanism.London:Routledge.Testas,A.(2004).UnemploymentinAlgeria:sources,underestimationproblemsandthecaseforintegrationwithEurope.JournalofNorthAfricanStudies,9(3),19–39.Thurbon,E.(2012).Ideasandindustrialgovernance:Hastheinfluenceofneoliberalismbeenoverstated?InD.Cahill,L.Edwards,&F.Stilwell(Eds.),Neoliberalism:Beyondthefreemarket(pp.180–203).Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.Toye,J.(1992).InterestgrouppoliticsandtheimplementationofadjustmentpoliciesinSub-SaharanAfrica.JournalofInternationalDevelopment,4(2),183–197.UnitedNationsConferenceonTradeandDevelopment(UNCTAD).(2011).Reviewofmaritimetransport.ReportbyUNCTADSecretariat.UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment.(2005).Casestudiesofbankablewaterandsewageutilities.ReportpreparedbyARD,US,19August.Valdés,J.G.(1995).Pinochet’seconomists:TheChicagoSchoolinChile.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.VelascoOrtiz,L.,&Contreras,O.(2011).Mexicanvoicesoftheborderregion.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.Vellinga,M.(2002).Globalizationandneoliberalism:economyandsocietyinLatinAmerica.Iberoamericana:NordicJournalofLatinAmericanandCaribbeanStudies,32(2),25–43.Zghal,A.(1971).Nation-buildingintheMaghrib.InternationalSocialScienceJournal,23(3),435-451.Zghal,A.(1985).WhyMaghrebipeasantsdon’tlikelandreform.InS.E.Ibrahim&N.S.Hopkins(Eds.),Arabsociety:Socialscienceperspectives(pp.322–335).Cairo:AmericanUniversityinCairoPress.


27

Zurayk,R.(2000).SustainableagricultureintheMiddleEasterncontext:whyprevailingmodelswon’twork.CultureandAgriculture,22(1),37–42.

Documents

Macquarie University ResearchOnline · Raewyn Connell & Nour Dados Publication Attribution This is the Accepted Author Manuscript for the article Connell, R & Dados, N 2014, “Where