Advertisement

The Arguments

Chapter
  • 714 Downloads

Abstract

As indicated in the first chapter, in the United States and within the Euro- pean Union, a balance between expenditure and revenue for financing the welfare state had been reached by about 2000. Strong economic growth at the end of the millennium was helpful in this respect. This, however, did not prevent governments from continuing to reform their welfare states. The fourth phase of fundamental reforms to systems of social security through the introduction of other methods of financing and paying bene its and the re-allocation of responsibilities between governments and social partners is still underway. To explain this phenomenon, I examine two arguments that are used by governments from 1975 onward to legitimize their continued pursuit of this new goal, i.e., reducing public spending. These arguments, one economic (that is, globalization)and one ideological (that is, new dogmas), are the subject of this chapter.

Keywords

Foreign Direct Investment Social Security Public Choice Welfare State Public Spending 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Chapter 3

  1. 1.
    Following Levine, I use the term “ideology” “to refer to a doctrine or collection of doctrines that enjoy the influence they do, not in consequence of their cognitive merit, but because they help to sustain or otherwise benefit social elites” (Levine, A.: The American Ideology: A Critique, Routledge, 2004, pp. 79–80).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    For instance: Sociaal Economische Raad: Dimensie Europa 1992, Den Haag, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Example from the Netherlands: Kolnaar, A. H. J. J.: Sociale Zekerheid en Verantwoordelijkheid: Een discussienota van de CDA-werkgroep Sociale Zekerheid, The Hague, 1992, p. 22.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    For instance: (1) Commission of the European Community, European Social Policy: Options for the Union, Green Paper, Consultative Document by Mr. Flynn, 17 November 1993, Com (93) 551, Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Krugman, P.: Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession, ibid., pp. 28–44.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Scholte, J. A.: Globalization: A Critical Introduction, ibid., p. 39. This is illustrated by the fact that the term globalization is used along with terms like modernization, internationalization, liberalization, universalization, Westernization, deterritorialization, and supra-territoriality—terms which, although with substantially differing emphases, are related and overlapping to some extent.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    As for the question of when globalization emerged, some authors refer to the journeys of Marco Polo and Columbus’ discovery of America, followed by the exploratory expeditions of the Portuguese, the Spanish, and the Dutch. From those days on, international trade became an important aspect of commercial life, organized in, for instance, the Dutch East Indian Company. Pepper, coffee, tea, sugar, oriental silk, gold, silver, porcelain, rubber, and tobacco, became important items of a booming global trade. This trade involved high import levies, however. Because of that, some scholars do not use the term globalization here, since to them globalization presupposes free trade (Legrain, Ph.: ibid., pp. 80–86). Mittelman mentions three possible origins of globalization (Mittelman, J. H.: ibid., pp. 18–19). In his view, one can argue firstly that globalization stems from the origins of our civilization, i.e., when groups of people started to interact with one another through conquest, trade, and migration. This would mean that globalization is about 5,000 years old. Urbanization during the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century would be part of this process of intensifying communication and economic relations. A second view is that globalization developed in parallel with the origins of capitalism in Western Europe during the 16th century. In those days, major technological innovations accompanied decisive shifts in the ratio of labor to capital, resulting in new economic and social relations. It was the start of a market orientation directed at profit maximization, of wage labor, and of private ownership of the means of production. Thirdly, one could argue that globalization is the consequence of fundamental changes in capitalism. Here, the 1970s represent an important turning point. Starting with a severe recession, the 1970s saw fundamental reforms having certain characteristic features: the collapse of Bretton Woods system; the restructuring of production processes toward more flexible, capital-and technology-intensive production; decreasing power of the unions; reductions in social expenditure; deregulation, privatization, and enhancing competitive power. Mittelman does not choose between these three possibilities. To him, globalization can best be understood in terms of its continuities and discontinuities with the past. Based on this distinction, he distinguishes between (a) incipient globalization, which is the period before the 16th century; (b) bridging globalization, being the period from the inception of capitalism in the Western world until the early 1970s; and, since then, (c) accelerated globalization, of which hyper-competition, induced by temporal and spatial reorganization of production, is characteristic.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    The bulk of literature on globalization can be classified in terms of opinions, ideas, convictions, statements, or perceptions. They illustrate, indeed, that globalization is a highly contested concept. Structural analyses of the phenomenon are not that readily available and, in so far as they are available, they differ in approach. Mittelman, for instance, focuses on the systemic dynamics and myriad consequences of globalization, the interplay between globalizing market forces and the needs of society. To him, globalization is not a phenomenon on its own but a syndrome of processes and activities. This syndrome is propelled by changing divisions of labor and power, manifested in a new regionalism and challenged by resistance movements (Mittelman, J. H.: ibid.). In short, Mittelman gives a holistic and multilevel analysis of the globalization process, combining economics, politics, and culture and concluding that, though globalization offers many benefits to some, a price has to be paid. That price is “a lessening, or in some cases a negating, of the quantum of political control exercised by the encompassed, especially in the least powerful and poorest zones of the global political economy. In addition, the penetration of world markets and increased polarization on a world level erode cultural traditions, giving rise to new hybrid forms” (Mittelman, J. H.: ibid., p. 5). Since the fall of communism, Marxist scholars define globalization as “the current phase of international capitalist accumulation” (Colás, A.: The Class Politics of Globalisation, in: Rupert, M. and Smith, H., (eds.) ibid., p. 191). Robinson distinguishes between four epochs in the history of world capitalism: (1) mercantilism with primitive capital accumulation; (2) competitive or classical capitalism, marking the Industrial Revolution, the rise of the bourgeoisie, and the forging of the nation-state; (3) corporate (monopoly) capitalism, which led to the consolidation of a single world market, organized within the nation-state system; and (4) globalization, which started with the economic crisis of the 1970s (Robinson, W. I.: Capitalist Globalization and the Trans-nationalization of the State, in: Rupert, M. and Smith, H., (eds.): ibid., p. 211). Marxist scholars insist that the potentially emancipatory resources of a renewed and perhaps reconstructed historical materialism are now more relevant than ever before. Rather than viewing global capitalism as a natural force, they try to show that there is a dialectic of power and resistance at work in the present-day global political economy. They believe that this dialectic could create the conditions for new forms of collective self-determination. For modern Marxists, globalization refers to a re-structuring of state-society and inter-state relations, following the economic downturn of the 1970s. They argue that diverse state-society relations, whether classical liberal, corporatist, interventionist-welfare or neo-liberal, “simply represent variations in the degree of re-politicisation and de-politicisation [...] of the economy in what are essentially capitalist totalities” (Teschke, B. and Heine, Ch.: The Dialectic of Globalization, in: Rupert, M. and Smith, H., (eds.), ibid., p. 178). To them, states are structurally tied to the power of capital. Because of that, over the past 20 years, states have not been able to harness their power to any other purposes than the interests of capital (Teschke, B. and Heine, Ch.: ibid., p. 182). Though it is interesting to read the Marxists ideas, brought together in a book of 300 pages, one does not find any idea on how these proclaimed new forms of collective self-determination could deal with democratic values, like freedom of speech, or how self-determining collectivities could stimulate individual initiatives and prevent command-and-control bureaucracies. Because these were precisely the ailments of communism, the modern Marxists’ approach of globalization is no more than a theoretical exercise having no practical use. Further, with Van der Loo and Van Reijen, one could consider globalization to be a process of modernization, i.e., as a complexity of mutually connected structural, cultural, psychological, and physical changes that have crystallized from past centuries and through this have shaped the world of today, and are still pushing that world in a certain direction (author’s translation) (Loo, H. van der and Reijen, W. van: ibid., p. 14). According to these authors, processes like these always produce their own paradoxical counter-movements regarding aspects like differentiation, rationalization, individualization, and domestication. The transition from an agricultural society into an industrial one, for instance, not only changed production processes, but also led to urbanization, secularization, rationalization, individualization, and many other economic, social, political, and cultural changes. Also, to a certain extent, Romanticism can be interpreted as a reaction to the ideas of the Enlightenment. Supporters of Romanticism criticized the optimistic belief in social progress and utilitarianism of the Enlightenment, because to them the society created by the Enlightenment was inhumane and repressive. A similar line of reasoning could be followed with respect to the transition from industrial society into post-traditional society. According to Giddens though, the latter has not made a complete break with traditions; these have become the subject to permanent reflection. A reflection that is fostered by expert systems, i.e., sectors of professionals who have a knowledge monopoly and who are organized according to their own logic. For those who are excluded from these systems, it is impossible to have an insight in their dealings (Loo, H. van der and Reijen, W, van: ibid., pp. 158–159). As for today’s modernization processes, one could argue that the globalizing world finds itself in a new transition phase; i.e., we have entered the network society or the information age (Castells, M.: The Rise of the Network Society, ibid.). Jihad and fundamentalism in general could be seen as a reaction to that, because they oppose an ongoing modernization and cultivate tradition. They stipulate the importance of family ties and religion. They call for a return to the clarity, security, and simplicity of earlier times; a longing for the better past (Loo, H. van der and Reijen, W. van: ibid., p. 92). They see the benefits of modernity as a threat to their own fundamental viewpoints. Paradoxically, however, although fundamentalists are longing for the better past, they make use of the most sophisticated communication technology to promote their anti-modernity ideas. Finally, one can, like Beck (Beck, U.: What is Globalization? Polity Press, 2001, introduction), focus on the meaning of globalization and ask how it can be molded politically. Beck does so from the perspective of differing modernities. The first modernity is a national one, conceived and organized within a particular cultural identity, i.e., a territory and a state. To post-modern philosophers, this first modernity has failed, because the universalism of the Enlightenment can no longer hold, and the cement in society has grown porous through the process of individualization. Therefore, society has lost its collective self-consciousness and, through that, its capacity for political action. Consequently, the collapse of the first modernity is inevitable, and with it the historical Western model of the association between market economy, welfare state, and democracy. In this scenario, neo-liberal ideas were instrumental in terminating the first modernity. Beck opposes this depressing view by distinguishing between globalism, on the one hand, and globality and globalization, on the other. Globalism is the mono-causal and economical neo-liberal theory of the world market that supplants political action, reducing the multidimensionality of globalization to a single economic dimension, conceived in a linear fashion (A completely different interpretation of the concept of globalism can be found in Keohane and Nye: Governance in a Globalizing World, ibid.). In other words, all other dimensions like ecology, culture, politics, and civil society are subordinated to the world market system. This ideological core liquidates an essential element of the first modernity, that is, the difference between economics and politics. Consequently, the central task of politics, which is to define the legal, social, and ecological conditions for economic activities, no longer plays a role, thus resulting in the second modernity. As for globalism, Beck argues that we have been living in a world society for a long time already, in the sense that the notion of closed spaces has become illusory. These days, no country or group can isolate itself from others. Consequently, we have colliding economic, cultural, and political systems. Therefore, what we call “world society” is not a homogeneous entity but a totality of social relationships, which are not integrated into or determined by national state politics. When we speak of world society we have to realize that self-perceptions of states or groups play an important role. World society, therefore, is a perceived or reflexive idea. The question as to the extent to which such a society exists may, on the basis of empirics, be rephrased into the question of “how and to what extent people and cultures around the world relate to one another in their differences and to what extent [their] self-perception of world society is relevant to how they behave” (Beck, U.: ibid., p. 10). Altogether, we may conceive the term world society as multiplicity without unity, accepting differences and non-integration. According to Beck, “this presupposes a number of very different things: transnational forms of production and labour market competition, global reporting in the media, transnational consumer boycotts, transnational ways of life as well as ‘globally’ perceived crises and wars, military and peaceful use of atomic energy, destruction of nature and so on” (Beck, U.: ibid., p. 10). These are globality characteristics of the second modernity which cannot be reversed. Globalisation, on the other hand, “denotes the processes through which sovereign national states are criss-crossed and undermined by transnational actors with varying prospects of power, orientations, identities and networks” (Beck, U.: ibid., p. 11). In order to redress this situation, each single autonomous aspect of the logic of globalization [culture, ecology, economics, politics and civil society] must be independently decoded and grasped in its interdependencies. According to Beck, “only in this way can the perspective and the space for political action be opened up. Why? Because only then can the depoliticizing spell of globalism be broken; only with a multidimensional view of globality can the globalist ideology of ‘material compulsion’ be broken down” (Beck, U.: ibid., p. 11). In other words, a decisive critique of globalism is necessary to provide space for the primacy of politics.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    The term is from Mittelman, J. H.: ibid.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Scholte, J. A.: Globalization: A Critical Introduction, ibid., p. 74.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Legrain, Ph.: ibid., pp. 107–110. For Chomsky, this type of globalization is very much connected to the start of a new era in world history, which began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, caused by two important things. The first one was the collapse of the Soviet Union. The second one was the continuing development of information technology, which linked the world together in global networks of computers and communications devices, making international trade and speculation faster and easier (Fox, J.: ibid., p. 18).Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    The Group of Lisbon (Petrella, R., Chairman): Limits to Competition (Dutch Translation), Brussels, 1994, p. 46 (author’s translation). In defining the phenomenon, the group relies on McGrew. In this definition, the globalization phenomenon covers two separate aspects, i.e., reach and intensity. As for its reach, globalization has a spatial meaning. It may relate to processes that encompass the whole world. Intensity refers to the levels of interaction, mutual connectedness, or interdependence between states and societies worldwide. The spatial aspect is central to Scholte, to whom globalization refers to the spread of supra-territoriality, which entails “a reconfiguration of geography, so that social space is no longer mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances, and territorial borders” (Scholte, J. A.: Globalization: A Critical Introduction, ibid., p. 16). Gilpin defines globalization as “the increasing linkage of national economies through trade, financial flows and direct investments by multinational firms” (Gilpin, R.: ibid., p. 299). In doing so, he stipulates the importance of the intensity aspect. In each of the three definitions, however, technological progress, the liberalization of capital exchange, and decreasing government interference in economic life, are the engines of the globalization process (Regarding this, see: Gooijer, W. J. de: On Solidarity in Changing Health Care Systems: Europe in Search of a New Balance, ibid., pp. 51–57).Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    I have chosen Gilpin’s approach somewhat arbitrarily. I could just as easily have used the schools of thought mentioned by Held, et al. They distinguish between globalism, traditionalism, and transformationalism. The first school encompasses those who argue that states are increasingly subjected to worldwide processes of change, which erodes the power of nation-states. Traditionalists resist this view. They believe that present global circumstances are not particularly unique. They point to a reinforcement of state powers in many places. Transformationalists argue that globalization transforms state powers and the context in which states operate (Held, D., (ed.): ibid.). Elsewhere, Held speaks alternatively of hyperglobalizers, sceptics, and transformationalists (Held, D. & McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. & Perraton, J.: Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, Polity Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    Gilpin, R.: ibid., p. 298.Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    For example, the Group of Lisbon: ibid.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Went, R.: Grenzen aan Globalisering? Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Forrester, V.: Une étrange Dictature (Dutch Translation), Amsterdam, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    In the words of Pettigrew, the Canadian Minister of International Trade, in: Klein, N.: Fences and Windows, ibid., p. 130.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    Leadbeater, C.: Up the Down Escalator: Why the Global Pessimists Are Wrong, Viking, 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    Leadbeater, C.: ibid., p. 350.Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    Leadbeater, C.: ibid., p. 101.Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    Leadbeater, C.: ibid., p. 327.Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    Legrain, Ph.: ibid., p. 23.Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    Legrain, Ph.: ibid., p. 23.Google Scholar
  25. 30.
    Legrain, Ph.: ibid., p. 21.Google Scholar
  26. 31.
    Legrain, Ph.: ibid., p. 45.Google Scholar
  27. 32.
    Legrain, Ph.: ibid., p. 45.Google Scholar
  28. 33.
    Legrain, Ph.: ibid., p. 322.Google Scholar
  29. 34.
    Legrain, Ph.: ibid., p. 324.Google Scholar
  30. 35.
    In: Axford, B.: ibid., p. 99.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    Ruigrok, W. and Tulder, R. van: The Logic of International Restructuring, London, 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    OECD: The OECD Jobs Study: Facts, Analysis, Strategies, Paris, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    Regarding foreign direct investment (FDI), Gilpin observes that it is concentrated highly and distributed very unevenly around the globe. The strong increase in FDI since the mid-1980s mainly took place in the United States, China and Europe, parts of the globe with promising or potentially promising large markets (Gilpin, R.: ibid., p. 24).Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    In: Mittelman, J. H.: ibid., p. 20.Google Scholar
  35. 40.
    Mittelman, J. H.: ibid., p. 45.Google Scholar
  36. 41.
    Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, paper AEP95082709, 24 November 1995.Google Scholar
  37. 42.
    Castells, M.: The Rise of the Network Society, ibid., p. 95.Google Scholar
  38. 43.
    Axford, B: ibid., p. 100.Google Scholar
  39. 44.
    These people have a point, since international trade over the past 25 years increased annually on average by 13%, whereas it was seldom higher than 3% annually in the preceding decade: Fukuyama, F.: The End of History and the Last Man, ibid., p. 118.Google Scholar
  40. 45.
    Scholte, J. A.: Globalization: A Critical Introduction, ibid., p. 75.Google Scholar
  41. 46.
    Evans, Ph. and Wurster, Th. S.: Blown to Bits:How the New Economics of Information Transforms Strategy, (Dutch Translation), Amsterdam/Antwerpen, 2002, p. 14.Google Scholar
  42. 48.
    Reich, R. B.: The Future of Success, ibid., p. 23.Google Scholar
  43. 49.
    Friedman, Th. L.: The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalisation, ibid., p. 140.Google Scholar
  44. 50.
    Authors like Legrain and Frankel refer to studies that show that developing countries that were open to international trade indeed demonstrated a better growth rate than those who shut themselves off from it. However, it is not clear who actually benefitted from this growth (Legrain, Ph.: ibid., chapter 2; Frankel, J.: ibid., p. 61). Frankel rightfully observes that income distribution is determined by many factors other than trade, among which redistribution policies by governments are very important (Frankel, J.: ibid., p. 63). Nevertheless, Legrain and Frankel have strong support from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Koffi Annan, and the Director of the WTO, Mike Moore, both of whom argue that free trade (in agricultural products, as far as Annan is concerned) will be to the advantage of poor countries. In this respect, the term “poor countries” refers to countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore. It is precisely this point that makes Moore’s argument suspicious. Firstly, these countries never liberalized their agricultural sectors. Secondly, Taiwan and South Korea carried out land ownership reforms generations ago. Thirdly, like the United States and the European Union, Moore’s sample countries protect their agricultural sectors against the influences of the world market. Furthermore, although Moore agrees that, as a consequence of trade liberalization, ending the subsidization of farmers in poor countries would create a minority for whom the establishment of a social safety net would be necessary, he seems to forget that the large majority of farmers live in countries where subsidies are either very limited or completely unknown. Altogether, we are talking of over one billion people who live on $1 a day or less, people who have to live off the results of their agricultural activities (Barrez, D.: ibid., pp. 85–88). Apart from this, some relativism is appropriate since, despite the “e-society” and the new economy, two billion people do not yet have electricity (Moore, M.: Stupid White Men, ibid., p. 22). And despite the strong increase of mobile telephony from a little over 4 million in 1988, to 400 million in 1999, to probably one billion in 2004 (Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Hurley, D.: Globalization of Communication, in: Nye, J. S. and Donahue, J. D., (eds.): ibid., p. 141), half of the world population has never yet made a telephone call (Nijkamp, P.: Schaarse Ruimte, Cyberspace en de Moderne Nomaden, in: Dalen, H. van and Kalshoven, F., (eds.): ibid., pp. 42–43), whereas world telephone density was only 12 telephones per 100 head of population in 1995 (Scholte, J. A.: Globalization: A Critical Introduction, ibid., p. 87). Also, the distribution of the internet appears to be very uneven on a global scale (Nua Internet Surveys 1998). For 1998, Nua gives the following distribution figures by region: Middle East, 0,525 million; Africa, 1 million; South America, 7 million; Asia/Pacific, including Australia and New Zealand, 14 million; Europe, 20 million; Canada and the United States, 70 million (in: Mittelman, J. H.: ibid., pp. 226–227). Around the turn of the century, some 25% of the American population used the internet, compared to 0.01% of the population of South Asia (Nye, J. S. and Donahue, J.D., (eds.): ibid., p. 2). So far, therefore, the Internet still is “an elite operation” of the developed world (Pilger, J.: Hidden Agendas, ibid., p. 532). Most of this elite, representing about 6% of the world’s inhabitants, resides in the United States and Western Europe Europe (Kupchan, C. A.: The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century, Vintage Books, New York, 2002, p. 106). Finally, it will take at least several generations before most of the world’s population will have access to digital interactive television (Scholte, J. A.: Globalization: A Critical Introduction: ibid., p. 276).Google Scholar
  45. 51.
    Huntington, S. P.: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  46. 52.
    Barber, B. R.: Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World, Random House, 1995, p. 4.Google Scholar
  47. 53.
    Huntington, S. P.: ibid., p. 183.Google Scholar
  48. 54.
    Huntington, S. P.: ibid., p. 183. The term toxification seems overdone at first sight. However, by the mid-1980s, worldwide exports of American television programming hours were over 40%, of which 44% went to Europe, 77% to Latin America, 70% to Canada, and 47% to sub-Saharan Africa. Conversely, American imports were no more than 1% of its commercial programming and 2% of its public service programming (Held, D., (ed.): A Globalizing World? ibid., p. 63). We should not be too surprised that certain non-Western cultures are uncomfortable with these facts. To put it even stronger, the elites in countries representing two-thirds of the world population (Chinese, Russians, Indians, Muslims, Arabs, and Africans), view the United States as “the single greatest threat to their societies” (Gates, J.: ibid., p. 192).Google Scholar
  49. 55.
    Fukuyama, F.: The End of History and the Last Man, ibid., p. 71. For the balance: the United States has no less than 37,000 religious denominations (Hertsgaard, M.: ibid., p. 130). Among them are a number of fundamentalists who are as dangerous as fundamentalist Islamies. In this respect, Qutb, the leading thinker of the influential Muslim Brotherhood, recognized the true enemy of Islam to be the “insidious penetration of cultural influences and ideas” from the West. To him, these influences were threatening to “exterminate” Islam (Berman, P.: ibid., p. 183).Google Scholar
  50. 56.
    Barber, B. R., 1995, ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar
  51. 57.
    Barber, B. R., 1995, ibid., p. 8. In the introduction to a later edition of his study, after September 11, 2001, Barber argues that the dramatic events of that day were an expression of “a global war between modernity and its aggrieved critics,” for which the only way out is the globalization of civic and democratic institutions. To Barber, democracy offers the only proper response to Jihad and McWorld. On the one hand, for jihad, democracy could be an instrument for avoiding the choice between sterile cultural monism and a raging cultural fundamentalism. On the other hand, for McWorld, democracy should mean establishing a front not against terrorism per se, but against “economic reductionism and its commercialising homogeneity that have created the climate of despair and hopelessness that terrorism has so effectively exploited.” In a later publication, Barber summarized these ideas with the term “preventive democracy,” based on the reality of worldwide interdependence. That reality would demand administrative, economic, cultural, and diplomatic activities directed at the drawing-up of treaties, institutions, and agreements which regulate the relations between nations through coordinating organizations. One would assume the United Nations to be the appropriate organization to achieve this. At the same time, however, one would have to conclude that it does not have the power to do so.Google Scholar
  52. 58.
    The term is from Mittelman: ibid.Google Scholar
  53. 60.
    For this subsection, I have relied on Meijer’s dissertation on neo-liberalism (Meijer, G.: ibid.).Google Scholar
  54. 69.
    In this respect, the difficulties for the implementation of neo-liberal ideas in practice can clearly be distilled from Robbins, who declared more than 50 years ago: “The idea of a competitive order is by no means a simple notion. It involves the systematic revision of the whole apparatus of law and order—the law relating to patents, the law relating to restraint of trade, the law relating to limited liability of corporations, and many other branches of the law—with a view to creating conditions which tend to maintain effective competition, where it is technically possible, and to control monopoly in the public interest where technical conditions make monopoly inevitable. It involves the search for new method of fiscal control, not only for the purpose of stabilizing aggregate demand, but also for the purpose of correcting and supplementing the operation of the incentive of relative prices, where analysis discloses the probability that this incentive works badly. This is no light task. It would be idle to pretend that we yet possess the knowledge or the technique to proceed very far on our way. Much more work needs to be done, not only in the field of pure analysis, but much more in the examination of the actual facts of industrial and commercial structure. Great as has been the progress of economics in other connections in recent years, this part of our subject has remained relatively underdeveloped; the harvest is likely to be great, but the laborers in the field are few. In the excitement of perfecting our instruments of analysis we have tended to neglect the study of the framework, which they assume. There is an urgent need for the best minds of the rising generation to apply themselves to this task of institutional invention in the light of patient realistic investigation” (cited in Meijer, G.: ibid., p. 142).Google Scholar
  55. 70.
    Palast, G.: ibid., p. 142.Google Scholar
  56. 71.
    Classical examples from the 19th century are Tönnies (Gemeinschaft vs. Gesellschaft), Durkheim (mechanical vs. organical solidarity), Weber (communal vs. associative relations), and Simmel (who took the process of structural differentiation as a central point of departure for his considerations). These scholars are the founding fathers of sociology. Also, the philosopher Karl Marx must be mentioned in this respect. Subsequent anthropologists like Malinowski (the principle of give and take), Mauss (free gifts do not exist), and Levi-Strauss have also dealt with the theme. Finally, Lalive d’ Epinay (individualism vs. solidarity), Habermas (justice vs. solidarity), Cooke (self-realization vs. solidarity), and Dean (reflexive solidarity) are examples of 20th-century scholars (regarding this, see (1) Komter, A. E., et al.: ibid., chapter 5; (2) Loo, H. van der and Reijen,W. van, ibid.: chapter 1). The founding fathers of sociology were interested in changes in society. Durkheim, for instance, observed that the industrial society of his time was characterized by a process of differentiation and individualization, which led many to believe that society was disintegrating, resulting in a decreasing cohesion. Through his analysis, he showed that this was not necessarily the case. Instead of disintegrating, society was being transformed from an agricultural one into an industrial one (Komter, A. E. et al.: ibid., p. 15). This transformation changed the character of society and introduced industrialization, individualization, rationalization, bureaucratization, urbanization, differentiation, and interdependence (Komter, A. E., et al.: ibid., p. 16). As for individualization, Durkheim feared that through vanishing traditional structures, the individual might no longer be embedded in society, instead pursuing his or her own self-interest and no longer subject to society’s social control. Similar pessimism was demonstrated by Weber with his ideas on a parallel development of a more subjective individual and a more abstract society, whereas Marx’s pessimism followed from his analysis of the way people organize their production processes, which determine their way of life and their thinking (Loo, H. van der and Reijen, W. van: ibid., chapter 1).Google Scholar
  57. 72.
    In this respect, Komter et al. observe that the Western world finds itself in a process of economic restructuring “where the modern industries of the 19th century have become the traditional sectors of the late 20th century” (author’s translation) (Komter, A. E., et al.: ibid., p. 17), with similar changes as those of the 19th and early 20th century. These changes involved, among other things, material production, mobility, and the functioning of the state (Komter, A. E., et al.: ibid., pp. 16–17). As for material production, economic restructuring caused unemployment for many, which neither quantitatively nor qualitatively could be compensated with new jobs in the service sector. Mobility is shaped by processes of globalization that moved labor-intensive production processes to low-wage countries, thus resulting in unemployment for low-skilled workers in the developed world.Google Scholar
  58. 73.
    This is in line with Hobbes’ Leviathan, in which he assumes that “man takes refuge in society not because of any natural affinity he bears his own kind, but simply because without it, he is incapable of living in safety” (Wight, J. B.: Saving Adam Smith: A Tale of Wealth, Transformation and Virtue, Prentice Hall, 2002, p. 135). Hobbes does not believe that men are morally free to choose. Though they may behave more-or-less rationally, their rationality is only at the service of objectives imposed by nature like, for instance, self-preservation (Fukuyama, F.: The End of History and the Last Man, ibid., p. 175). This is also consistent with the way Locke formulated his ideas on liberalism, with its characteristic bourgeois society. Such a society is only interested in individual material prosperity, it knows neither a sense of community nor virtue, and it is not interested in mutual well-being. It is a society of pure egoists. In this respect, the radical American libertarian Ayn Rand speaks of “the virtues of selfishness” and “the evils of altruism” (Gates, J.: ibid., p. xxix). The only common characteristic assumed to be shared among people is that they have equal chances (Fukuyama, F.: The End of History and the Last Man, ibid., p. 171).Google Scholar
  59. 74.
    Mueller, D. C.: ibid., p. 1.Google Scholar
  60. 75.
    Mueller, D. C.: ibid., chapter 1.Google Scholar
  61. 76.
    By that neo-liberal rationale, globalization is propelled. From this perspective, Mittelman rightfully observes that “a commitment to reducing poverty can only be displayed by integration into the international capitalist economy. Neoliberalism is thus presented as the antidote to the problem of poverty, instead of also being implicated in generating it” (Mittelman, J. H.: ibid., p. 78).Google Scholar
  62. 77.
    Vroonhoven, L. van: De Al-ene Mens: Op Zoek naar het Individu, Damon, 1999, p. 25.Google Scholar
  63. 78.
    Self cynically observes that “parties formulate policies in order to win elections, rather than win elections in order to formulate policies” (Self, P.: Government by the Market? The Politics of Public Choice, London, 1994, p. 3).Google Scholar
  64. 79.
    Reich reveals that 128 former members of the American Congress had become paid lobbyists by 2000. Many of them left Congress voluntarily in order to trade their connections. Similar facts apply to congressional aides (Reich, R. B.: The Future of Success, ibid., p. 137).Google Scholar
  65. 80.
    Reich, R. B.: The Future of Success, ibid., p. 155.Google Scholar
  66. 81.
    Centraal Planbureau (Dutch Central Planning Bureau): Scanning the Future: A Long-Term Scenario of the World Economy, 1990–2015, The Hague, 1992, p. 45.Google Scholar
  67. 83.
    Self, P.: ibid., p. 70.Google Scholar
  68. 84.
    Albert, M.: Capitalism versus Capitalism (Dutch Translation), Amsterdam, 1992, p. 142.Google Scholar
  69. 85.
    This element was based on the ideas of the economist Laffer that levying taxes beyond a certain point would result in reduced economic activity and hence lead to a lower income, which, in turn, would lead to a lower taxable income. In consequence, the highest federal tax rate fell from 75% in 1979 to 33% in 1989. Meanwhile, Reagan reduced corporate taxation from 33% to 16% and enlarged the possibilities for depreciation in such a way that many corporations no longer had to pay taxes or even had previously paid taxes refunded (Hertsgaard, M.: ibid., p. 144).Google Scholar
  70. 86.
    Hertsgaard, M.: ibid., p. 143.Google Scholar
  71. 88.
    Hertsgaard, M.: ibid., p. 141. Twenty years later, the American government is still the same. O’Neill, Secretary of Finance in the George W. Bush administration, openly declared that the United States did not need a social security system or state-provided health care (in: Moore, M.: Stupid White Men, ibid., p. 48).Google Scholar
  72. 89.
    Self, P.: ibid., p. 72.Google Scholar
  73. 90.
    Hertsgaard, M.: ibid., p. 143.Google Scholar
  74. 91.
    Kuttner, R.: Everything for Sale, ibid., p. 90.Google Scholar
  75. 92.
    Self, P.: ibid., p. 72.Google Scholar
  76. 93.
    Moore, M.: Downsize This, ibid., p. 129.Google Scholar
  77. 94.
    Known promoters of the new monetary policy were Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps. Their argument rested on the quantity theory of money as well as on the concept of a natural rate of unemployment. Inflation, in this theory, is primarily a monetary phenomenon, caused by the creation of excess money by central banks. As for unemployment, monetarists argue that every economy has an inherent rate of unemployment that, depending on circumstances, may go up or down a little but that will always exist as the upper limit of economic activity. Therefore, monetarists hold the view that, if governments want to decrease the level of unemployment below this natural rate, it will cause higher inflation. Consequently, the role for central banks and governments should be limited to the establishment of rules for steady non-inflationary economic growth. In addition to this, government intervention in the economy, with high taxes, extensive regulation and welfare programs means, according to the supporters of monetarism, a distortion of the market which, in turn, decreases incentives to save, invest and work, thus undermining the growth of productivity. Less frequently mentioned, but nevertheless important at the micro-economic level, is the doctrine of structural adjustment, which provided the basis of another conservative political ideology. Promoters of this ideology favor deregulation of the economy, reduction of the welfare state, and downsizing the government (Gilpin, R.: ibid., pp. 83–84).Google Scholar
  78. 95.
    Fox, J.: ibid., p. 38.Google Scholar
  79. 96.
    Rifkin, J.: The European Dream, ibid., p. 235.Google Scholar
  80. 97.
    Albert, M.: ibid.Google Scholar
  81. 98.
    Etzioni, A.: The Spirit of Community. Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda, London, 1995, p. 5.Google Scholar
  82. 99.
    Although these facts deliver a rather disturbing picture, future research should endeavor to find out whether they are a consequence of governmental policy during Reagan’s presidency. In this respect, Fukuyama points out that the question is still whether “the American underclass is poor because it lacks economic opportunities or whether there is something that could be called a ‘culture of poverty’—dysfunctional social habits like teenage pregnancy and drug addiction—that would persist even if the economic opportunities existed” (Fukuyama, F.: Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York, 1995, p. 38). Fukuyama may be right about the two examples he gives. Drug addiction, for example, is certainly also a problem for wealthy people, but I cannot believe that, in general, people choose to be poor or to be uninsured against the costs of health care for cultural reasons. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that in none of the documents of international organizations, like the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme, is poverty attributed to inherent cultural characteristics of people, either implicitly or explicitly (Mestrum, F.: ibid., p. 61).Google Scholar
  83. 100.
    Hutton, W.: The State We’re In, London, 1995, p. 185.Google Scholar
  84. 101.
    Jessop, B.: From Social Democracy to Thatcherism: Twenty-five Years of British Politics, in: Abercrombie, N. and Warde, A., (eds.): Social Change in Contemporary Britain, Cambridge, 1995, p. 32. In 1981, the Conservative government was obliged to abandon its intense flirtation with monetarism, because it had severe consequences for the economy and unemployment (Urwin, D.W.: ibid., p. 249).Google Scholar
  85. 102.
    Phillips, K.: ibid., p. 339.Google Scholar
  86. 103.
    The Mail on Sunday, 29 September 1996.Google Scholar
  87. 104.
    Hoogerwerf, A.: Politiek als Evenwichtskunst, Alphen a/d Rijn, 1995, pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
  88. 105.
    Goodman, A. and Webb, S.: For Richer, For Poorer: The Changing Distribution of Income in the United Kingdom, 1961–91, The Institute of Fiscal Studies, London, 1994, p. 66.Google Scholar
  89. 106.
    Commission of the European Communities: Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century, White Book (Dutch translation), Brussels, 1994, p. 17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Personalised recommendations