|
In 1776, economist
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations launched liberalism on the
world as an economic and ideological model. Since then, it has
had larger and smaller moments of success. Where Karl Marx saw
'a walking corpse', and other detractors a 'machine to generate
injustices', supporters acclaimed 'the most successful ideology
in the history of humanity' and above all a 'realistic', systematic,
coherent vision. What is the view today?
Time for evaluation
Since the emergence of the global justice or anti-globalization
movement in Seattle in December 1999 -a movement rooted in the
1994 Zapatista uprising in Mexico and the 1997 global economic
crisis- increasing numbers of voices have been raised against
the neoliberal economic model, the genetically modified grandchild
of Smith's liberalism. One of the accusations that began to fly
was of 'single-mindedness' or exclusivity and by extension, totalitarianism.
Another was 'illegitimacy', where the only legitimacy was that
of having claimed itself the 'only way' and the narrow focus of
its outlook. These critics demanded a 'more human face of globalization'.
Whilst attempts were made to undermine the credibility of the
Seattle movement by saying that the demonstrators were simply
'troublemakers', one key figure, Joseph Stiglitz, former chief
economist of the World Bank, began to offer support for the protesters'
arguments.
Professor Stiglitz had questioned the practices of the Bank and
particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since his
time at the Bank. When he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics
in 2001, he used his acceptance speech to call for greater state
controls and regulation, restating objections to the neoliberal
agenda that fed economic globalization from the Washington Consensus
(US politicians,
business and institutions).
The repeated economic crises affecting most of the nations of
the South, especially in Asia and Latin America, were convincing
evidence that the critics were right and that the neoliberal
model had failed. Of course no single failing, nor even hundreds
of these, necessarily imply the failure of the model; nor does
the poor implementation of policies -indeed several of the criticisms
voiced by Stiglitz pinpoint aspects in bureaucracy or application,
and these do not negate the effectiveness of the model. However,
the request for a 'more human face' is tantamount to demanding
another model, although the nature of this replacement is not
at all clear: neoliberalism, by definition, cannot have a human
face.
Realism
vs utopia
During the 20th century, defenders of liberalism considered it
a 'realist' ideology, in opposition to the utopian visions of
the socialists and Marxists in power behind the Iron Curtain
and actively promoting political change all over the world. With
the collapse of the socialist bloc in the early 1990s, the liberals
proclaimed their age-old accusation that the utopian models give
way to ones with their feet on the ground. In the last decade
of the 20th century, neoliberalism -the Anglo-Saxon corporate
version of liberalism- emerged for some as the only suitable
model and, by implication the only one able to direct our political
and economic destiny. It was not selling utopia, although supporters
claimed there that the tools were there to manage the global
economy in its current, transnationalized state.
It is worth pointing out here that neoliberalism did not need
moral legitimacy. It was only claimed to be a 'suitable' tool
and, where socialism promoted idealistic notions such as solidarity,
happiness and equality, neoliberalism simply offered economic
prosperity. It is essential to remember that in terms of a theoretical
and 'scientific' model economic neoliberalism is not linked to
any ethical or philosophical
conditions.
For although in the early stages capitalism underwent various
interpretations by European Christian thinkers who posed questions
about the links between the economy and moral issues, the two
finally went their separate ways, as did philosophy and science. In the end, as
Adam Smith would note, the liberal doctrine established that 'it
is not the benevolence of the butcher, brewer or baker which provides
our food, but the consideration of his own interest. We do not
invoke their humanitarian sentiments but their selfishness; nor
do we speak of our needs, but of their advantages.'
Ethics
versus economics
As neoliberalism
is a 'driverless machine' and therefore amoral, its supporters
claim there are no contradictions in the fact that, since its
wide application in the world, the
gap between poor and rich has currently widened to the extent that
the wealth of the 10 richest people in the world is worth more
than 1.5 times the income of all the least developed nations put
together. Nor, for these advocates of neoliberalism, is it anomalous
that a mere 4 per cent of the income of the 360 richest people
-who together own more than the half the world's wealth- would
be enough to solve the economic problems of the world's poor people.
Three of the wealthiest people alone have assets equaling the
GDP income of our 48 poorest nations.
However, for most religious, spiritual or 'humanitarian' institutions
these discrepancies carry a moral contradiction that has led them
to call for revision of the situation generated by this economic
model. This is an ethical response that aims to return meaning
to the world. Stiglitz´ reaction, and his Nobel prize, are
a response to a fear: that of awakening in a world ruled by 'driverless
machines'.
*Published
in The World Guide
|
|
VOLVER AL AUTOR
