The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [source].
The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government.
However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the already dominated segments. This is the biggest criticism of neoliberalism that only certain elites stand to gain from neoliberal ideas (Harvey, 2005).
What I am thinking is whether neoliberal ideologies and implications are a necessary evil in the short run or not. Coming from a developing country that struggles with tonnes of problems (literacy, corruption, population, productivity, just to name a few), I have seen first hand the lack of efficiency and slow productivity, especially in the public sectors. Let me give an example to clarify this a little.
I walk into a public bank to get a money order. It is about 11am in the morning. I talk to someone about how to get this done. The person tells me who can actually help me. So I go his desk. The new person tells me what needs to be done after keeping me waiting for some time. Then he sends me off to make some photocopies as I am not allowed to use the one the bank has. When I return, it is about 12pm. So he keeps me waiting so he can finish lunch. Then he takes my paperwork, looks at it, puts some rubber stamp seals on it, signs it, and I am off to a new desk. By the time I get out of the bank, it is almost 2:30pm. That was 1997.
Now I walk into a public bank, it takes me about 15 minutes or so to get a money order done. It is 2009.
What has changed? Even to a novice eye like mine, the reason seems obvious. More and more private banks are not operating in my country. They have a one stop service for most transactions (as opposed to use one line for deposits, one for paying bills, another for withdrawals, etc) and government banks are forced to follow suit just to survive. So has this not been a positive effect of letting privatized firms operate more in the country? There are numerous examples like this.
I understand and agree that such policies are serving the dominant structures more. But int he short run, if we can get public ventures to get into the mindset of competitive service, than perhaps later on removing some neoliberal options may not be too deterrent.
The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government.
However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the already dominated segments. This is the biggest criticism of neoliberalism that only certain elites stand to gain from neoliberal ideas (Harvey, 2005).
What I am thinking is whether neoliberal ideologies and implications are a necessary evil in the short run or not. Coming from a developing country that struggles with tonnes of problems (literacy, corruption, population, productivity, just to name a few), I have seen first hand the lack of efficiency and slow productivity, especially in the public sectors. Let me give an example to clarify this a little.
I walk into a public bank to get a money order. It is about 11am in the morning. I talk to someone about how to get this done. The person tells me who can actually help me. So I go his desk. The new person tells me what needs to be done after keeping me waiting for some time. Then he sends me off to make some photocopies as I am not allowed to use the one the bank has. When I return, it is about 12pm. So he keeps me waiting so he can finish lunch. Then he takes my paperwork, looks at it, puts some rubber stamp seals on it, signs it, and I am off to a new desk. By the time I get out of the bank, it is almost 2:30pm. That was 1997.
Now I walk into a public bank, it takes me about 15 minutes or so to get a money order done. It is 2009.
What has changed? Even to a novice eye like mine, the reason seems obvious. More and more private banks are not operating in my country. They have a one stop service for most transactions (as opposed to use one line for deposits, one for paying bills, another for withdrawals, etc) and government banks are forced to follow suit just to survive. So has this not been a positive effect of letting privatized firms operate more in the country? There are numerous examples like this.
I understand and agree that such policies are serving the dominant structures more. But int he short run, if we can get public ventures to get into the mindset of competitive service, than perhaps later on removing some neoliberal options may not be too deterrent.
Comments