Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction 1st Edition

A Very Short Introduction collection is an excellent idea for showing in an easy way even the most hardest topics. I have a collection of ten or so and use them for my classes or writing.Neoliberalism, by Manfred B. Steger and Ravi K. Roy is an attempt for rendering a concise guide for all those interested in knowing what is. In this vein, the authors address several dimensions of what Neoliberalism could be: maybe the Washington Consensus (for globalizing American capitalism), a catchphrase invented by the radical left..., a postmodern version of quaint 18th-century laissez-faire..., and so on.In order to reach a good approximation, the authors review the difference between "neo" and "liberalism," (Ch. 1), the three waves of NL (Ch. 2), and some effects or variations in the Asia-Pacific region (Ch. 3), in Latin America and Africa (Ch. 4), and, finally, the challenges that NL faces today in the world (Ch. 5).I have to recognize the capacity of the authors to synthesize a very complex topic in just a few pages (127). Thus, even if they go fast and jump from one era to the other or from one continent to the other, they do it in a very few lines and with perfect clarity.Now the problem is the tone of the book.  Neoliberalism is a text that makes clear that this doctrine or corpus of ideas is bad news. In this sense, it adds to the mainstream that is avid for getting the culprit of all evils. NL is like the lamb for a shrine that is impossible to fill. Are so many factors that affect the output of a given plan (NL or whatever you want) that it is almost impossible to say it will work in any single board. Geography, demography, climate, language, among others, affects. After reading the book you get the impression that very bad people (neoliberals) are planning very bad things for very good or innocent people. Even at the cost of the planet itself. I don't know exactly what the comparison should be but Lex Luthor comes to mind.The story goes like this: 1) something must be done for a poor country, 2) something is done, 3) that something goes wrong, 4) NL is the culprit. Example after example in this book, the story is the same. Here's one: the country is Ghana. The authors say: "During the [90s] the familiar NL calls for deregulation, liberalization, and privatization measures were instituted and an export-oriented production strategy was pressed mainly in the areas of monoculture crops and natural resources. The narrowly focused NL strategy resulted in the reduction of domestic food production, thus exposing many African countries to famine, epidemics, and ensuing political instability." Now, tell me what you think. Yes, you don't have to think, NL is the culprit.But then, if by chance you keep any doubt at all, the authors add in the very next page (94), just in case: "It would hardly be an exaggeration to argue that Africa has almost been written out of the NL globalization 'success story' for its failure to attract private investment, allegedly [and this 'allegedly' is important] as a result of 'bad government', 'corruption', 'lawlessness', and 'endemic strife'." So if you think the latter issues could have had any influence in the bad outcome of the strategy, you're wrong. NL is the culprit. End of story.Now, as an outsider to the U.S., I always have doubts when someone speaks of countries they know little about or countries they have not lived in; I have lived in Chile since I was born almost sixty years ago. I know my country, its history and evolution. Until the sixties, even the seventies, we were one of the poorest countries of Latin America. To visit the U.S. you have to be very, very lucky. Some people that for some reason were there talked about that and all you could do was listen and imagine, nothing more. You know why? Because you'll never get there. It was so far and it was so expensive... You cannot imagine. Yes, you cannot imagine that. We were so poor that we were destined to always stay here.But then something changed, really changed. It's so obvious, isn't it?It wasn't NL, it was Liberalism for the very first time in our modern history. And that began to occur during the 70's and the 80's. After the military government came democracy and with it the society began to harvest all the possibilities of a country with opportunities to prosper. Now you did have the chance of being the architect of your own destiny, as the saying goes. And, by the way, to visit the U.S.What the authors say about my country is just part of the truth, not all the truth. See this: NL "soon spread to other parts of the world... Examples include Chile after General Augusto Pinochet's 1973 CIA-supported coup..." That is not an incomplete or a half truth, it is a complete falsity, from beginning to end. The CIA had nothing to do with the 1973 coup!, it was a genuine and patriotic movement, believe it or not. Every time I read this I answer myself, if they say this about my country, what do I do to separate falsity from truth when they speak of other countries. How do I know about Ghana? How do I know about Japan? Or China. Even Argentina, which is our neighbor and knows something about it (and my opinion, by the way, is not coincidental at all with that of the authors).(Unfortunately, I must add that in p. 81 they repeat the same falsity with the same words.)So if you read Neoliberalism do it with all this in mind. And last but not least, just for the sake of a very good possibility that NL is just a way of demonizing that old and good liberalism of the past, the good one, remember this famous Bjiarne Stroustrup quote on computer languages: "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.”

Neoliberalism doesn't appear much in everyday conversation, but the concept and its policy implications have affected all of our everyday lives, sometimes ominously. Whether people realize it or not, this once mere intellectual doctrine has spread, since the 1980s, like thick paste over most of the globe. Despite its leftish sounding name, both the political Right and Left have embraced and utilized many of its tenets. Suspicious eyebrows may raise with the fact that both Reagan and Clinton were economic neoliberals. Though their respective implementations differed, both presidents romanced the free market, free trade, welfare reform, deregulation and privatization. Both believed these principles would bring peace and prosperity to a troubled globe. Once the dominant, almost unquestionable, economic theory, neoliberalism has only recently come under fire following the global economic meltdown of 2008 - 2009. But was it to blame for our current financial malaise? In "Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction," authors Steger and Roy highly suggest that the answer is a resounding yes. Nonetheless, they provide a very balanced and sober view of this highly glorified and fervently derided doctrine. No potboiling or sardonic platitudes here. This diminutive book, fresh off the press, may stand as the best introduction to neoliberalism available.A hint as to the book's ultimate destination arrives with a dramatic photo of President Obama delivering his inagural address. Similar foreshadowing appears on page one with a quote from this speech: "...this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control." Many heard the vibrations of neoliberalism's swan song in those words. Following this brief teaser the book quickly backs up some 300 years to some surprising historical revelations. 17th century Classic liberal economics challenged the heavily controlled markets of monarchical mercantilism. Adam Smith and David Ricardo posited self-regulating markets guided by an "invisible hand." So today's "free market" concept, a doctrine often inaccurately ascribed exclusively to neoconservatives, originated from liberal Enlightenment ideas. This endured until the financial train wreck known as the Great Crash of 1929 caused many to waggle scolding fingers at the unrestrained playground the market had evolved into. John Maynard Keynes and other theorists at the time ridiculed the notion of a self-regulating market and slowly New Deal politics seeped into the mainstream. FDR's fundamental policies remained hegemonic until the 1970s crises caused many to question the bureaucratic welfare state. These new questioners were influenced by the ideas of von Hayek ("the Road to Serfdom") and monetarist Milton Friedman. A three letter acronym provided their rallying call: "D-L-P" or Deregulation, Liberalization and Privatization. They called for a free unregulated market unencumbered by government intervention. Basically the antithesis of New Deal thought. As such, they put the "neo" in "neoliberalism" as they touted their stance as a return to "classic liberal" economic theory.The 1980s brought what the authors call "the first wave" of neoliberalism via Reaganomics and Thatcherism. They each began dismantling their respective welfare states, deregulating markets and privatizing many government held organizations. Reagan also went after deficitspending, but had a hard time reconciling tax cuts and balanced budgets with Cold War defense expenditures. The "second wave" saw the Left appropriating neoliberal ideas via Clinton and Blair. Clinton's flavor attempted to reconcile social justice with free market policies, but he was also the President who both signed the Welfare Reform Act and repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. These acts fit squarely with his neoliberal beliefs.The book then explores neoliberalism in other parts of the world, completely skipping the administration of George W. Bush. Neoliberalism faced challenges in Japan where Prime Minister Kozumi tried to privatize the Japanese Postal Savings system. China embraced the doctrine in a unique way following the 1976 death of Mao Zedong. Successor Deng Xiaoping slowly introduced free market principles while maintaining a rigid centrally controlled state apparatus. Hu Jintao, the current Chinese leader, has continued and advanced these policies. India also emerged from its socialist past to embrace neoliberal economics under current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. All cases saw various shades of success economically but increased economic disparity (i.e., the poor became poorer as the rich became richer). The situation was different in South America where what the authors term "coercive" IMF and World Bank conditions obliged countries such as Argentina and Mexico to implement neoliberal policies. Once again the economies seemed to recover at the cost of the growing gap between haves and have nots. A final example of Ghana leads the authors to conclude that neoliberalism doesn't necessarily work in any situation or with any culture.The final chapter covers territory familiar to everyone: the current global economic crisis. Many blame neoliberalism for the flaming domino crash and some neoliberals, such as Alan Greenspan, have admitted that neoliberlism no longer works. Voices from the Left and Right now call for more regulation, which was agreed upon at a 2009 meeting of the G-20. These reforms have yet to see much light, however, and some skeptics feel they may vaporize. In light of this, neoliberalism may survive, albeit in a diluted form. The authors conclude that the world may see a weaker third wave of neoliberalism or a Global New Deal. We shall see.A better introduction to this highly influential and pervasive topic is hard to imagine. This highly readable book remains accessible to anyone curious about the forces that have shaped the past 30 years. Though it ultimately seems to discredit neoliberalism as a sustainable political stance, it nonetheless presents its pros while delineating its cons. A sober mood pervades it chapters, though the heat turns up slightly while discussing correlations between neoliberalism and African famines. Ultimately, those who support or chide neoliberalism will learn enough to keep their brains full for weeks.

This is a relatively short but very dense account of recent economic history using the term neoliberalism as a lens to look through.The concept of neoliberalism is extended so broadly, it stretches from Thatcher to Blair, that it is difficult to see any real alternatives. The book almost seemed to suggest at one point that a neoliberal handbook had been secretly handed out to senior people in a variety of fields, and they all then adopted it wholeheartedly.In contrast I would suggest that neoliberalism is like the ‘habitus’ described by Pierre Bourdieu and covered in the recent Gillian Tett book on silos. It is a set of opinions that have been widely been accepted as so obvious that no alternative can readily be envisaged.The book is well written and clearly laid out, it has an authoritative tone without being unduly inaccessible. Whether you are curious about the term neoliberal or not, this is a good, and chastening account of recent economic solutions.

Bit complicated, but I've now got the basic idea of what this much bandied term means

Good brief introduction to subject

Reliable service. Excellent book.

I was very impressed with this book. I believe that everyone alive today who wishes to be aware of the economic/political world that they live in should have an understanding of what exactly is neoliberalism. This book is a detailed introduction with enough information to gain some real understanding without being overwhelming to those new to subject matter.I could write more but it's as simple as that if your fairly new to the subject but would like more then a definition from a search on the internet and something to give you a decent overview that is well written then read this and I'd doubt you'd be disappointed.