Analysis of three papers for session 2

Below are some of the reflections and questions that I was about to think of while reading the three papers by Harvey, Ferguson and Birla.

 1.  Will the neo-liberal regime be okay with social welfare schemes if it helps in the expansion of their interest as well? That is to say that if social welfare becomes an integral part of neo-liberalism (helping in its survival and its expansion) then, would such a position be okay for those who decry neo-liberal ideas and ideologies?

      2. Can neo-liberalism be articulated as a set of effects produced by various factors? So, can we then say that neo-liberalism would refer to an effect or a set of effects and not exactly the causes of those effects.

3.  3.The relation between policy (any policy, including the neo-liberal policy) and practice is quite complicated. The policy, which is coherent and rational in paper, doesn’t exactly does the same function in reality and practice. So, can the adverse effect of neo-liberal policy be attributed to its non-congruity with practice. 

    4. How do we look at the relation between the two types of theorizations, i.e, explanation and concept formation? I think this is the gist of Ferguson’s argument. What I mean by this is that the two forms of theories perform two fundamentally different functions. Explanations try to give reason and explain the phenomenon which is occurring out there and are concerned with the cause and effect connections. On the other hand, concept formation tries to conceptualize, i.e, form concepts, theories, hypotheses, etc. which might be concerned with explanation of a phenomenon, but not necessarily perform that function always. Conceptualization can be very abstract in a way that it might not concern itself with real world phenomenon, but anyways can be ‘used’ to explain the real world phenomenon. With the idea of neo-liberalization, what I am concerned with is, if is it an explanation or a concept. The question about if it is an ‘abstract’ concept refers to the domain of theory which is not ‘explaining’ anything in the real world. As I have already mentioned that such abstract concepts can be used to explain the real world phenomenon, but its origin and function might not be to do so. Looking at neo-liberalism as a concept might help us in answering the questions that Harvey and Ferguson pose in their respective papers with more or less importance, i.e., the different understanding and use of the term ‘neo-liberal’. To explain my point through an example, if we consider ‘neo-liberalism’ as a late stage of a capitalist society, then we are making a prediction according to the theory that we already have. This theory is able to give reason as of why such a ‘stage’ should come into existence.  On the other hand, neo-liberalism can also refer to a set of ‘explanation’ concerned with the cause and effect of certain phenomenon that is occurring in the society.

      

      5. Harvey seems to suggest that neo-liberalism is a set of processes and policies which emerged in the quest for an alternative to the already dwindling capitalist system. Harvey seems to look at the formation and dissemination of neo-liberalism as a historical process which was affected by historical events. And he also seems to root it as a stage of capital accumulation that some of the Marxist seems to agree with.

     6. Harvey talks about the idea of economic ‘growth, but what is this growth? How is it measured? Is Harvey’s measurement of ‘growth’ encompass the ‘other’ effects this growth had on the people and the economy both in the short and long run. Or should it encompass those adverse effects which will change the way one looks at the ‘idea of growth’. 

      7. The international institutions are not at all democratic and accountable to people, as Harvey points out. But another interesting question is about the role of such institutions in configuring an association with the imperial and financial powers and their targets, i.e., the space for the expansion of their markets. International organizations can be seen as an attempt to devalue the ‘simple’ democratic structure of the nation states and replace it with the hegemonic, undemocratic system of expanding the interest and ideas of a set of ‘class’. And the reason why they seem to achieve this is because they are totally undemocratic, unaccountable to the general public and function in the domain of certain policies designed by certain group of people with certain vested interests.

    

     8. Harvey also talks about ‘controlling the masses’ in some ways when he points out how the neo-liberalism has appropriated some conceptual apparatuses and appropriated it to serve their own interest. This trend is reflective in the way elections took place in US in past few decades, where the huge media campaign and public relations played much greater role in influencing the results than any other factors. 

    9.  Can we understand the effect of neo-liberal policies (whatever that means) as a result of some actions which are not even properly understood by the people who are propagating, formulating and implementing those actions through policies and politics. This has to do fundamentally with the way we understand the relation between theory and practice. Theory tries to capture reality, if this is what a theory is trying to do, by making several assumptions regarding reality, i.e., how it will work in the world out there. The fact that the complexity of the real world is not completely captured by the theory, creates a huge gap in what results are intended in theory and what results come to the fore in reality.

     10.  Can we look at neo-liberalism as just one process in the larger machinery of historical move from a capitalist to a socialist society. Since, as Marx argued that, capitalism creates the conditions for its own destruction, does neo-liberalism fit perfectly to that frame? The more destructive effects the neo-liberal policies have on the larger part of the population, and more aware people become of these effects and their causes, won’t it lead to a revolution, at least in the theory? If this is expected to be the inevitable result of neo-liberalism, then should we be calm and wait for the conditions to grow for the revolution to happen? 

      11.   Harvey looks at neo-liberalism in terms of cause and effect relation between the class interests and adverse effects that such interests bring about through various means. Whereas Ferguson forces us to take another look at our understanding of the term ‘neo-liberalism’. I think that Ferguson’s analysis points at something very fundamentally problematic in our understanding of the idea of ‘neo-liberalism’. This problem is related to what exactly causes the conditions and effects that we consider as fundamental features of neo-liberalism. If we consider neo-liberalism in terms of the effect it has had on both the classes, where the ruled class is facing adverse effects and the ruling class is in an advantage, then we can reasonably claim that neo-liberalism is ‘caused’ by certain factors, like class interests, etc., and that this has led to the adverse effects. The causal link is crucial to understand the idea of neo-liberalism which Harvey mainly advocates. But the problem is that, as Ferguson points out, the policies and ideas which Harvey claims as essential features of neo-liberalism has benefitted that class too which it is supposed to exploit. In such situations, we need question our understanding of what exactly we mean by neo-liberalism and what is it actually doing. Ferguson makes it a point to explicate this relation in his paper and I think this is indeed necessary to overcome confusions surrounding our view of the term ‘neo-liberalism’.