By Rob Plastow
Neoliberalism is a powerful force for organisation, rationality and economic development. It is championed by world elites and has become the ruling ideology of globalisation and 21st Century governance. Throughout it’s implentation it has also caused much distrust, exploitation and environmental degration as discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this series.
As it is both everywhere and nowhere, a process and a rationality that makes itself felt through an invisible hand that guides and an invisible foot that kicks, fighting it in any traditional sense has proved incredibly problematic.
However, although it may prove ironic for the proponents of neoliberalism, the greatest challenge to their hegemony may be made possible by the very working of neoliberalism itself – as in it’s doctrine of state dismantlement is the decentralisation of political decision making to local government and their communities.
The people vs neoliberalism
For many years politics in Bolivia was ruled by a neoliberal elite, who were favourably viewed by the US government who turned a blind eye to the growing disparity in incomes, the oppression of indigenous Bolivian communities trapped in poverty and instead encouraged the opening up of the Bolivian market to international ends.
However, in Bolivia neoliberalisation eventually met with locally organised resistance and ultimately political change in the form of Evo Morales’ unification of cocaleros, workers and indigenous groups. As Perrault and Geddes have noted, this political change was made possible in many ways by the governmental decentralisation that resulted from the neoliberal policies that preceded it.
The same policies are also part of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’.
It’s also interesting and important to note that decentralisation was at the heart of the work of E.F Schumacher as well. An environmentalist very much ahead of his time and who championed the agency of change through lots of small actions by lots of people in the context of their locality, over and above a few big moves by those in the political centre. Although neoliberalism may have many detrimental impacts on the environmental movement, it would seem from Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful, that decentralisation does not have to be one of them – if utilised by environmentalists as well as business. The idea of localisation is not new to the environmental movement (think Transition Towns, Local Agenda 21, bioregionalism etc), in fact it is at it’s core, but this has always been in counter to centralised power. Decentralisation therefore potentially hands the political means to such groups to better achieve their aims – as long as they are well organised and ready for the challenge, which many no doubt are.
And if they are are not, growing strain across many other interest groups may lead to more people joining forces in their communities to fight for change. At the present moment, the impact of the credit crunch, global recession and austerity based cuts to social services are causing much anger in the general public to the neoliberal agenda, albeit that their challenge is not couched in such specific terms. So although it appears hegemonic and monolithic, neoliberalism is not without its weaknesses or criticism and it is important to remember that it has faltered many times before, even though within its writing of history it would suggest otherwise.
Since the end of the Cold War, capitalism has been without direct contrast, which has led to its own arrogant proclamation of the end of history. However, the failure of the markets in 2008/09, climate change, peak oil and increasing global inequalities show that the foundation that supports the status quo is changing in a profound manner whether anyone likes it or not. It is in many ways only held together by the confidence and desperation of the grossly affluent whose system it is and the compliance of those of us who don’t even notice it going on.
This merely displays one of the greatest powers behind neoliberalism and capitalism as a whole, or any other powerful hegemonic ideology for that matter, which is to make people think that there is no other way things can be, that the status quo is immutable.
But as history is keen to show us, this happens time and time again, with each purportedly immutable way of the world replacing another.
With this in mind, decentralisation should be seized upon by communities to make change happen for themselves, to lead the way from the bottom-up. What this necessitates though, is empowerment, self-education and the courage to do it for ourselves. In a politics of apathy and low voter turnout, there will need to be those who take up the challenge and encourage those around them to get involved, which is no easy task but no change can result without the support of the people. It is a huge task to take an idea and lead it through to a cultural tipping point.
But as Margaret Mead allegedly once said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
References for Parts 1, 2 and 3:
Bakker, K. 2007. ‘The “Commons” Versus the “Commodity”: Alter-globalization, Anti-privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South’ in Antipode, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp. 430-455.
Benton, T. 1991. ‘The Malthusian challenge’, in Osborne, P. (Ed) Socialism and the Limits to Liberalism, pp 241-269. Verso: London.
Bumpus, A.G, & Liverman, D.M. 2008. ‘Accumulation by Decarbonization and the Governance of Carbon Offsets’ in Economic Geography, Volume 82 (2) pp. 127-155.
Castree, N. 2008. ‘Neoliberalising nature: the logics of deregulation and reregulation’ in Environment and Planning A, Volume 40, pp. 131-152.
Castree, N. 2008b. ‘Neoliberalising nature: processes, effects, and evaluations’ in Environment and Planning A , Volume 40, pp. 153-173.
Castree, N. 2009. ‘Researching neoliberal environmental governance: a reply to Karen Bakker’ Environment and Planning A, Volume 41, pp. 1788-1794.
Daly, H., & Cobb, J. B., Jr. 1989. For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston: Beacon.
Daly, H.E., 1996. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
Daly, H.E. 2002. ‘Reconciling the Economics of Social Equity and Environmental Sustainability’ Population and Environment. Vol.24, No.1, pp 47-53.
Foucault, M. 1976. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge. Penguin: London.
Geddes, M. 2010. ‘Building and Contesting Neoliberalism at the Local Level: Reflections on the Symposium and on Recent Experience in Bolivia’ in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 34.1, pp. 163–173.
Glassman, J. 1999. `State power beyond the `territorial trap’: the internationalization of the state’ in Political Geography 18, 669-696.
Heynen, N. and Robbins, P. 2005. ‘The Neoliberalization of Nature: Governance, Privatization, Enclosure and Valuation’ in Capitalism Nature Socialism, Volume 16 Number 1.
Holifield, R. 2004. ‘Neoliberalism and environmental justice in the United States environmental protection agency: Translating policy into managerial practice in hazardous waste remediation’ in Geoforum 35, pp. 285–297.
Jessop, B., 1994. ‘Post-fordism and the state’ in: Amin, A. (Ed.), Post-Fordism: A Reader. Blackwell, Oxford, Cambridge, MA, pp. 251–279.
Jessop, B., 2002. ‘Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspective’ in Antipode 34 (3), 452–472.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W, and Zito, A.R. 2003. ”New’ Instruments of Environmental Governance: Patterns and Pathways to Change’ in Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W, and Zito, A.R. (eds). 2003. ‘New’ Instruments of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects. Routledge: London.
Klein, N. 2007. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Allen Lane: London.
Lemke, T. 2001. “The birth of bio-politics: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality”. Economy and Society Volume 30 Number 2 pp. 190–207.
Mansfield, B. 2007. ‘Articulation between neoliberal and state-oriented environmental regulation: fisheries privatization and endangered species protection’ in Environment and Planning A, Volume 39, pp. 1926-1942.
McCarthy, J. And Prudham, S. 2004. ‘Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism’ in Geoforum 35 pp.275–283.
O’Connor, J., 1998. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. Guilford Press: New York.
Peck, J. & Tickell, A. 2002. ‘Neoliberalizing Space’ in Antipode, Volume 34, pp. 380-404.
Pepper, D. 1993. Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice. London: Routledge.
Perreault, T. 2005. ‘State restructuring and the scale politics of rural water governance in Bolivia’ in Environment and Planning A, Volume 37, pp. 263-284.
Polanyi, K., 1944. The Great Transformation. Rinehart & Company: New York.
Robertson, M. 2004. ‘The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance’ in Geoforum 35, pp. 361–373.
Robertson, M. 2006. ‘The nature that capital can see: science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services’ in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Volume 24, pp. 367-387.
Robertson, M.M. 2000. ‘No net loss: wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature’ in Antipode 32:4, pp. 463–493.
Wolford, W. 2005. `Agrarian moral economies and neoliberalism in Brazil: competing worldviews and the state in the struggle for land’ in Environment and Planning A, Volume 37, pp. 241-261.