Neoliberalism is perceived as the opposite to effective social policy and administration. However, there are several countries (as Switzerland in the West and Estonia in the East) which pursue neoliberal policies but maintain good social indicators at the same time. What is Your opinion about this question?
A country that is competitive in the global market i.e. Implementing, I guess, what I understand you call neoliberal policies, does have the fiscal space for means-tested social welfare. Otherwise, if not competitive, it will only redistribute poverty within the middle class...
If you examine the theory:Hayek, Freidman, Nozick etc. they were all closet utilitarians! So, yes, it's possible. In practice it has to be. Rampant capitalism leads to civil wars.
Christopher NOCK
I should have mentioned that the neoliberal/libertarian approach prefers charity for promoting social goods. Charity is the wrong mechanism for this. It might provide existence (by charity) but cannot guarantee citizenship (by right). Hence the rise of the New Liberalism in Victorian Britain which provided a liberal basis for the welfare state. If interested please see my "Lest we Forget: The case against charity at the end of the nineteenth century."
NOCK
Dear Sabine,
Taking Switzerland and Estonia in this case is not accidental. According R. Titmuss- G.Esping-Andersen methodology of welfare states typology Switzerland and Estonia fall into the liberal-marginal model according decommodification index, private versus public share, etc. However, several indicators which do not correspond to this methodology, like minimum wage, average wage, size of old age pensions, level of social services and other social security measures fall out of this liberal-marginal typology and at least correspond to the average bismarckian-conservative-corporative model which is more friendly to the public sphere than to the private. Overall, redistribution shares in Switzerland and Estonia are also not too low. In my explanation, it is side-effect with these countries - when something more fall from "the big wealth pile" downwards to the excluded, low-income, etc. In my understanding, retrenchment and austerity measures for this methodology matters only quantitavely, but not qualitatively. Although quantity is important during some time periods, quality for such modelling matters especially.
From a community development perspective it seems difficult to align a focus on profit (market-based philosophies and private enterprise emphasis) with effective social policy. Economic liberalisation views the population as individual consumers and so creates policies diametrically opposed to community needs such as healthcare, education and security - the success of which are dependent on community values such as the Common Good, and the principles of Rights & Responsibilities (my right to be supported by my community, my responsibility to contribute what I can). However, populations forged on "every man for himself" will struggle more aligning social policy with market-based policies than populations forced (by, for example goegraphical, economic or political forces) to develop in and as communities. New Zealand is an example of the latter and Australia an example of the former. It can be seen that Capitalism builds a social welfare net solely in order to protect its workforce and its consumers.
No, las políticas neoliberales son de mercado, dejar hacer dejar pasar, tienen animo de lucro. no tienen función de Estado Social de Derecho. PREDOMINA LAS DESIGUALDADES SOCIALES.
Neoliberalism confounds and even so causes problems inside countries with high level of development of productive forces. For developing countries, that don't achieve even reproduce technological cycles (I+D)n, the effects are devastating, forcing finally state administrations to "siphon" (a term very well used by Sabine) resources from social areas with its known consequences. A model difficult to sell !!
It can. Just an example: social pact between capitalism and workers after WWII. Keynesianism managed to do that. But in the end, some clash between workforce and capitalism is inevitable, because their interests are in permanent contradiction.
From the answer brought by Joan the most important thing to take is that we have to look into those contradiction of interests to find light to make clear the coming route. The problem was assessed by classics but time presents new questions. Neoliberalism has continued posing the same, again and again sweetened, proposal but in the long run falling in the same hole. Placing interest of capital over interests of human gender.
Daniel Diaz Batista "Neoliberalism has continued posing the same, again and again sweetened, proposal but in the long run falling in the same hole". Exactly. That's a very important affirmation. But placing interest of capital over human interest is an intrinsic feature of capitalism, thus making it very difficult to address human problems with that kind of economic system.
Any economic system that supports capitalism is doomed to collapse. Neoliberalism in liberalism is the policies blocking the economic system in the world. These policies started in 1929 in the USA and were the main reasons for the economic crises spreading rapidly to the world. You cannot carry out social policies in a place where liberalism exists and you cannot display it in an effective management.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude