O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Neoliberalism. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Neoliberalism. Mostrar todas as postagens

sábado, 15 de julho de 2023

Book review: The Chile Project: The Story of the Chicago Boys and the Downfall of Neoliberalism, Sebastian Edwards - Richard Feinberg (Foreign Affairs)

Seria preciso especificar que o neoliberalismo da ditadura chilena só interveio depois de uma primeira fase de políticas autoritárias e dirigistas pelo próprio general Pinochet, um monstro humano e um ignorante em economia.


The Chile Project: The Story of the Chicago Boys and the Downfall of Neoliberalism

By Sebastian Edwards
Princeton University Press, 2023, 376 pp.
Published on 

Reviewed by 

At the height of the Cold War, the far-right economics department of the University of Chicago, with the support of the U.S. government, recruited students from then democratic Chile. When General Augusto Pinochet seized power in 1973, he hired these “Chicago boys” to apply their extreme free-market fundamentalism to the Chilean economy. Remarkably, the left-of-center democratic governments that succeeded Pinochet’s regime after 1990 maintained many of those market-friendly prescriptions. Edwards, a Chilean-born economist with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, narrates a fascinating insider intellectual history of the policies and personalities behind Chile’s economic development in recent decades. But he struggles to explain the unanticipated popular uprising in 2019 against this doctrinal “neoliberalism” with which he largely sympathizes. Although the economic model had generated strong growth, reduced extreme poverty, and expanded the middle class, Edwards now finds that many policymakers neglected stark, persistent inequalities; corporate collusion had eroded free-market competition; and public policy may have gone too far in interjecting market competition into education, health care, and retirement pensions. Looking forward, Edwards suggests that Chile may yet find a more sustainable middle road as a European-style social democracy, with less spectacular economic growth but greater social cohesion.

From Amazon.com: 

How Chile became home to the world’s most radical free-market experiment―and what its downfall suggests about the fate of neoliberalism around the globe

In 
The Chile Project, Sebastian Edwards tells the remarkable story of how the neoliberal economic model―installed in Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship and deepened during three decades of left-of-center governments―came to an end in 2021, when Gabriel Boric, a young former student activist, was elected president, vowing that “If Chile was the cradle of neoliberalism, it will also be its grave.” More than a story about one Latin American country, The Chile Project is a behind-the-scenes history of the spread and consequences of the free-market thinking that dominated economic policymaking around the world in the second half of the twentieth century―but is now on the retreat.

In 1955, the U.S. State Department launched the “Chile Project” to train Chilean economists at the University of Chicago, home of the libertarian Milton Friedman. After General Augusto Pinochet overthrew socialist president Salvador Allende in 1973, Chile’s “Chicago Boys” implemented the purest neoliberal model in the world for the next seventeen years, undertaking a sweeping package of privatization and deregulation, creating a modern capitalist economy, and sparking talk of a “Chilean miracle.” But under the veneer of success, a profound dissatisfaction with the vast inequalities caused by neoliberalism was growing. In 2019, protests erupted throughout the country, and in 2022 Boric began his presidency with a clear mandate: to end 
neoliberalismo.

In telling the fascinating story of the Chicago Boys and Chile’s free-market revolution, 
The Chile Project provides an important new perspective on the history of neoliberalism and its global decline today.

quinta-feira, 5 de julho de 2018

Felipe A. Oliveira: Neoliberalismo e desenvolvimentismo no Brasil e na Argentina

O Google alerts sempre me avisa quando um trabalho citando algum texto meu é disponibilizado na internet. Desta vez foi esta tese de doutoramento defendida em Sussex, por um amigo e colega, que cita alguns dos meus trabalhos:

Felipe Antunes de Oliveira
Department of International Relations 
Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2018
The Political Economy of Permanent Underachievement
A critique of neoliberalism and neodevelopmentalism in Argentina and Brazil
A University of Sussex PhD thesis
Available online via Sussex Research Online:

References:
(...)
Almeida, Paulo Roberto de. 2004. “Uma Política Externa Engajada: A Diplomacia Do
Governo Lula.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 47 (1): 162–84.
doi:10.1590/S0034-73292004000100008.
———. 2006. “Uma Nova Arquitetura Diplomática? Interpretações Divergentes Sobre
a Política Externa Do Governo Lula (2003-2006).” Revista Brasileira de
Política Internacional 49 (1): 95–116.
———. 2010. “Never before Seen in Brazil: Luis Inácio Lula Da Silva’s Grand
Diplomacy.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 53 (2): 160–77.
doi:10.1590/S0034-73292010000200009.
———. 2011. “A Diplomacia Da Era Lula: Balanço e Avaliação.” Revista Política
Externa 20 (3): 95–114.

University of Sussex
Felipe Antunes de Oliveira
Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

The Political Economy of Permanent Underachievement:
A critique of neoliberalism and neodevelopmentalism in Argentina and Brazil

Summary
In Argentina and Brazil, the future never seems to arrive. Over the last three decades, successive waves of neoliberal and neodevelopmentalist reforms invariably ended in disappointment. The most relevant question defying the contemporary Brazilian and Argentinian political economy literature is why, despite being repeatedly predicted in economic programs and promised in political discourses, catch-up development never materialises? Neoliberal and neodevelopmentalist authors offer apparently contradictory answers to that question. For the former, economic underachievement is a result of insufficient or ill-conceived pro-market reforms. For the latter, it is a consequence of the lack of state-led national development projects. In this thesis, I challenge both mainstream narratives. I claim that the roots of Brazilian and Argentinian permanent underachievement are intrinsically related to the fragilities of neoliberal and neodevelopmentalist development strategies, which result in inherently inconsistent policies. Although representing themselves as complete opposites, both sides actually share two problematic premises: a narrow view of development, understood as capitalist catch-up, and a simplified opposition between state and market. My critique starts from a radical reappraisal of the very concept of development, informed by Leon Trotsky’sidea of uneven and combined development and its contemporary interpretations. Defining development as the dynamic outcome of the interplay between class disputes and international pressures and opportunities, I argue that the shortcomings of the neoliberal and neodevelopmentalist reforms were determined by the specific responses given by dominant class alliances in the face of successive international crises. The argument is advanced through four in-depth case studies of the state reforms carried out in Brazil and Argentina since the 1990s, with particular attention to macroeconomic and foreign policies. By breaking the oligopoly of narratives about Brazilian and Argentinian development shared by neoliberals and neodevelopmentalists, I aim to contribute to the rise of alternative strategies of development from below.
Keywords: Neoliberalism; Neodevelopmentalism; Uneven and combined development; Argentina; Brazil.

The Political Economy of Permanent Underachievement
A critique of neoliberalism and neodevelopmentalism in Argentina and Brazil.
ChaptersIntroduction – The political economy of permanent underachievement.
Part 1 – Neoliberalism, neodevelopmentalism and beyond
Chapter 1 
– Development through the prism of neoliberalism and neodevelopmentalism
Chapter 2 – Uneven and combined development – a radically perspectived concept of development
Part 2 – Neoliberalism and market utopia
Chapter 3 
– Neoliberalism in Argentina – the first world is here 
Chapter 4 – Neoliberalism in Brazil – ‘A new development project’
Part 3 – Neodevelopmentalism and state utopia
Chapter 5 
– Neodevelopmentalism in Brazil – the future that never arrives 
Chapter 6 – Neodevelopmentalism in Argentina – from class conciliation to confrontation
Conclusion - Challenging the oligopoly of legitimate development discourses

Detailed Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... iii 
Chapters ....................................................................................................................................... iv 
Detailed Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... v 
List of figures, tables and charts ................................................................................................ viii 
List of abbreviations .................................................................................................................. ixx
Introduction – The political economy of permanent underachievement....................................... 2
Part 1 – Neoliberalism, Neodevelopmentalism and Beyond ........................................................ 9 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 1 – Development through the prism of neoliberalism and neodevelopmentalism .... 12 
1.1 – Neoliberalism as a development strategy premised on the market utopia ................. 13 
1.1.1 - Neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus.................................................... 16
1.1.2 – Beyond the Washington Consensus, the political economy of the neoliberal development strategy ...................................................................................................... 19
1.1.3 Neoliberalism and Peripheral Realism................................................................... 22 
1.2 Neodevelopmentalism as a development strategy premised on the state utopia........... 24 
1.2.1 Reformist dependency theory and the forgotten origins of neodevelopmentalism 28 
1.2.2 Contemporary expressions of neodevelopmentalism and the ‘Ten Theses’. ......... 32 
1.2.3 The geopolitics of neodevelopmentalism............................................................... 37
1.3 – Swallow this bitter medicine: Neoliberalism, Neodevelopmentalism and the disease metaphor ............................................................................................................................. 40
Chapter 2 – Uneven and combined development – a radically perspectived concept of development............................................................................................................................ 44
2.1 – Why development? .................................................................................................... 47
2.2 From Marx to Trotsky – The missing concept of development in historical materialism ............................................................................................................................................ 49
2.3 Contemporary U&CD and its critiques......................................................................... 57
2.4 The political economy of uneven and combined development..................................... 63 
Conclusion to Part 1 – Beyond Neoliberalism and Neodevelopmentalism ............................ 70
Part 2 – Neoliberalism and market utopia................................................................................... 72
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 72 
Chapter 3 – Neoliberalism in Argentina – the first world is here ........................................... 76
3.1 From ‘Salariazo’ to ‘catch-up’ development – the promises of Neoliberalism in Argentina............................................................................................................................. 79
3.2 ‘The Economy of the Garden of Eden’ – and how to pay for it.................................... 82 
3.3 – The foreign policy of Carnal Relations...................................................................... 91
3.4 Uneven and combined development in Argentina – or what happens when the whip ofexternal necessity lashes the economy of the ‘garden of Eden’? ........................................ 96
Chapter 4 – Neoliberalism in Brazil – ‘A new development project’................................... 112
4.1 From market fundamentalism to reformism and back: the promises of neoliberalism in Brazil................................................................................................................................. 116
4.2 Brazilian neoliberalism in action: monetary reforms and privatisation ...................... 123
4.3 ‘Autonomy by participation’ and the resynchronisation of foreign policy with the neoliberal development strategy ....................................................................................... 134
4.4 Neoliberalism and uneven and combined development in Brazil............................... 139 Conclusion to Part 2 – Crisis and class struggle ................................................................... 157
Part 3 – Neodevelopmentalism and state utopia ....................................................................... 160 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 160
Chapter 5 – Neodevelopmentalism in Brazil – the future that never arrives. ....................... 163
5.1 Change and social development – the promises of neodevelopmentalism in Brazil .. 166
5.2. – From neoliberal orthodoxy to the ‘new economic matrix’ and back – the three phases of the neodevelopmentalist cycle from a macroeconomic perspective............................. 175
5.3 - Brazil in the age of giants – neodevelopmentalist geopolitics and the national interest .......................................................................................................................................... 191
5.4 Beyond the crises of neodevelopmentalism – uneven and combined development ... 196
Chapter 6 – Neodevelopmentalism in Argentina: from class conciliation to confrontation . 204
6.1 From unity to overcome the crisis to the ‘won decade’ – Neodevelopmentalist political discourse in Argentina ...................................................................................................... 206
6.2 The political economy of confrontation – testing the limits of neodevelopmentalism 217
6.3 Damage control and international space for development - Neodevelopmentalist foreign policy in Argentina. .............................................................................................. 236
6.4 Who exactly won in the ‘Won Decade’? Uneven and combined development in neodevelopmentalist Argentina......................................................................................... 242
Conclusion to Part 3 – Kirchnerism and Lulism as actually existing neodevelopmentalism. .............................................................................................................................................. 247
Conclusion – Challenging the oligopoly of legitimate development discourses ...................... 252 References................................................................................................................................. 254

terça-feira, 24 de abril de 2018

Was Mises a Neoliberal? - Jeff Deist (Mises)

Was Mises a Neoliberal?

Mises Institute, April 23, 2018

Does neoliberalism, the tired slogan of our time, have a precise definition? 
The short answer is no, it doesn't. At least not readily one readily at hand, if this New Republic article is any guide:
For the left, neoliberalism often connotes a form of liberal politics that has embraced market-based solutions to social problems: the exchanges of the Affordable Care Act, for instance, rather than a single-payer, universal program like Medicare. {Jonathan} Chait argues that leftists use the word to “bracket the center-left together with the right” and so present socialism as the only real alternative. But the term has its critics on the left, too: Political economist Bill Dunn finds it too insular, rarely adopted by the people it is said to describe. The historian Daniel Rodgers, meanwhile, argues that neoliberal means too many different things, and therefore not enough.
But is neoliberal a slur, as some contend, used to attack Democrats who are overly cozy with Wall Street and global corporations? Does it describe left-liberals who have given up the fight for full democratic socialism, and sold out their principles to enjoy the fruits of unjust capitalism?
English anthropologist and geographer David Harvey implies as much, though he does assign reasonably cohesive elements to the term:
An economy built on just-in-time production, the internationalization of capital, the deregulation of industry, insecure labor, and the entrepreneurial self. In the years since, these trends have only accelerated due to improvements in, and the spread of, information technologies. But few call this “post-Fordism” any longer. They mostly call it “neoliberalism.”
Harvey references Henry Ford, not Gerald Ford, in his identification of neoliberalism as the political devolution of western societies from democratic nation states into subdivisions of borderless mass production and mass consumption. And this materialism is at the core of why left-progressives view neoliberalism as a pejorative term; and perhaps not surprisingly label the New Republic itself a neoliberal outlet (notwithstanding protestations by Chait and others). To progressives, the Clintons, the Democratic National Committee, and traditional old guard liberal media outlets are merely center-right leaning mouthpieces for big business.  
As with most political (and politicized) terms, definitions vary wildly depending on who uses them. Murray Rothbard and Elizabeth Warren hardly mean the same thing when they say "capitalism," and we all suffer from the tendency to imbue words with meanings that suit our purposes. Interestingly, use of the term "neoconservative" similarly has been attacked as a slur, one designed as code for undue Zionism or overeagerness to unleash military forces. Helpfully, however, neoconservative Godfather Irving Kristol himself provided us with the broad parameters, and the expression has lost much of its bite in the post Bush 43/Cheny/Rumsfeld era.
Within the current zeitgeist we can offer a less inflammatory yet still loose definition of neoliberalism than Harvey: the basic program of late 20th century liberalism (social democracy, public education, civil rights, entitlements, welfare, feminism, and a degree of global governance), coupled with at least grudging if not open respect for the role of markets in improving human life. In other words, neoliberals are left-liberals who accept the role of markets and the need for economic development as part of the larger liberal program. Think Bono, who considers himself a progressive "citizen of the world" yet admires markets and globalism.
With this definition in mind, the New Republic article goes badly astray when it asserts that neoliberalism "emerged from the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the early twentieth century." First and foremost, it's hard to consider any century-old framework of thought as neo anything. And it's difficult to trace meaningful connection between first and second generation Austrian economists, writing before World War II, before truly global trade, and before the triumphant ascension of central banks, with today's neoliberal political program of social democracy and political globalism. Menger, Mises, and Hayek, with their deep regard for specialization, comparative advantage, and global trade, all wrote within a basic framework of nation states.  
As is often the case, critics of markets and private property mistake means with ends, and assume a lack of concern for "human" considerations is necessarily bound up with rigorous concern for material considerations. Hence author Patrick Iber travels a winding path of cherry-picking Misesian and Hayekian thought, the effect of which is deeply misguided though not malevolent. Not much is new here; Iber simply repeats the standard progressive arguments: they favored capital over labor. They supported democracy only as a means of reducing violent people's uprisings. They supported government, but only in service to wealth and property. And so forth. Yet by New Republic standards he treats both men somewhat fairly, far better than, say, The New York Times or Washington Post would and have. There is only one out-of-context cheap shot directed at Mises ("he was pleased when an anti-fascist uprising was violently suppressed in 1927"); meanwhile the article at least recognizes Hayek's moral concerns over apartheid in South Africa and Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile.
But the author errs badly in assuring the reader that Mises (the democrat) preferred capital to labor in service of the bourgeoisie, and that Hayek thought markets took priority over "human rights and social justice." This is especially interesting given Hayek's own perspective on the latter term, and the typically vague manner in which the author employs both.
For our purposes we can neatly distinguish "real" liberalism, or classical liberalism for lack of a better historical term, from neoliberalism. Liberalism in Mises's conception is fundamentally concerned with private property. In this view the means of production — capital — are in private hands. They are not owned by the state, by society, by "the people," or collectively. Full stop. No amount of regulated semi-capitalism or semi-socialism can evade this foundation, because both individual and economic freedom hinge on the free use and control of private property. Control over one's property, meaning the ability to use, alter, alienate, encumber, or sell it, is the essence of true property ownership—albeit always subject to tort liability for harms caused to others. Any amount of taxation, regulation, or outright confiscation necessarily erodes this control, which Mises acknowledged even within his framework of utilitarian democracy as a protector of property rights.
This insistence on property rights at the core of any liberal program is scarcely to be found in today's neoliberalism, yet again it remains at the heart of left-progressive antipathy to the term. They are suspicious of any introduction, or re-introduction, of markets and property into what ought to be a worldview of economic planning by the state.
We should note that Mises also appended his program of liberalism with two important corollaries that were "neo" for the time, specifically the interwar years: freedom and peace. In contrast with what he saw as the "old" 19th century perspective, a "present-day" liberalism had "outgrown" the old version through "deeper and better insights into interrelationships." Meaningful liberalism required political freedom for the individual, especially freedom from involuntary servitude. And peace was the foundation for all true economic activity, inescapably tied to civilization. Undoubtedly New Republic readers would benefit from understanding just how progressive Mises really was when Liberalism first appeared in 1927!
Meaningful argumentation, as opposed to politics and outright war, requires words and precise definitions. This is why, unfortunately, almost all political talk devolves into what Orwell accurately described as "meaningless words." Meaningless words attempt to impugn or attack the "other," rather than convey specific information or create understanding and consensus. Politics is not a science, but we would all benefit from insisting on rigor in definitions from political pundits just as we once did from social scientists. Imprecise meanings and shifting semantics generate more heat than light, and leave us all talking past one another.