Critique of the modern-day government

Critique of the modern-day government

Author

Institution

Date

081781_QRecitation paper (25 February 2012)

Describe neoliberalism as a form of governmentality.

Introduction

For quite some time, modern political debate has been immersed in the thought of the state as a potentially monstrous and malignant entity. The centralized party states common in the East and the welfare states found in the post-war West have been severely challenged. This has fueled the thought that freedom for human beings starts beyond the state. Various alternatives have been advanced in an effort to rectify the excesses, injustices and inefficiencies brought about by the extended State. The alternatives have been based on the construction of a civil society and free market where individuals, organizations and groups interact freely and in liberty (Rose and Miller, 2010). However, the theories of power pertaining to economic determinism and the liberal pluralist have been challenged. Analysts have argued that the form of state is crucial in comprehending geo-political relations, as well as contemporary forms of exercise of power in national territories.

Neo-liberalism was advanced as a form of government that moves away from welfare states. It reactivates the basic principles of liberal government in which economic activity would be regulated by the markets. The aspects of government that are held as political responsibilities in welfare states would be changed into commoditized forms with market principles guiding their regulation. In neo-liberalism, active agents in economic entrepreneurship, which replaces regulation, are held as the most appropriate to make decisions on their affairs as well as the most effective in determining the outcomes of their actions. In neo-liberalism, individuals would strive to enhance their quality of life in which case active entrepreneurship replaces reliance of responsible solidarity. In essence, neo-liberalism breaks ranks with welfare. According to Rose and Miller (2010), welfare state produces a culture of dependency since the citizens expect the government to do what only citizens can do. In essence, neo-liberalism redefines the position of the state in politics. It outlines that the state should have the capacity to defend the nation’s interests at the international level, and provide the legal framework for economic and social life in order to ensure order. However, autonomous actors within the legal framework must be allowed to conduct their business freely without interference from the state.

Identify and explain the multifaceted and complex relationship between the various structures and dynamics of productive tendencies of neo-liberalism, on the one hand, and the very outcomes of the neoliberal order, on the other.

Neo-liberalism should be viewed as the restructuring of political rationales, which aligns them with the contemporary government technologies. In essence, the political initiatives allow the state entities or even the state to be autonomous and not bear responsibility for the calculations and actions of welfare organizations and businesses (Rose and Miller, 26). The center would adopt a range of devices seeking to distance the state’s formal institutions from other social actors, and approach them in a different manner.

Neo-liberalism has its basis as strategies to develop and sustain a market and use contractual exchange as the basis for reshaping economic exchange. Privatization is essentially one of the most visible strategies, and one that is most aligned to the political ideals pertaining to the market rather than the state. Neo-liberalism entails restructuring programs in such a way that an individual would have full control of his affairs (Rose and Miller, 2010). It is understood that an entrepreneurial individual who has autonomy and freedom would predominate any other, as pertaining evaluations of government political power and programs’ ethical claims. In this case, the political subject is an individual with an active citizenship rather than a social citizen who has powers and responsibilities coming from his being a member of a collective body (Rose and Miller, 2010). An individual’s citizenship would be manifested in the energetic pursuit of fulfillment as well as the calculations that enhance its achievement rather than public largesse.

Outcomes of neoliberal order

It has become clear that neo-liberalism or neo-liberal order is associated with some outcomes that should essentially render it illegitimate. It is noteworthy that neo-liberalism promotes the thought that an individual (and especially, entrepreneurs) should have the capacity to control their affairs and enhance the quality of their lives. There are varied outcomes of neoliberal order, some of which are positive and others negative. For positive outcomes, the liberal order would promote entrepreneurship as individuals would have an incentive to pursue their interests. Decreased state intervention means that only the best survive in the market due to increased competition. Indeed, individuals would reap according to their input in the system, in which case they would have the incentive to place more emphasis on the entrepreneurship. In addition, it is noteworthy that the state would bear fewer burdens as concerning the social welfare of its citizens. This would not only reduce the dependency of its citizens on the state but also ensure that only individuals who are really in need are catered for by the state.

However, there are some negative outcomes that are associated with the neoliberal order. Characterizing the neoliberal order are periodic crises with varied intensity. These crises are triggered by the capital development and result in reduced growth, increased deprivation and a rise in unemployment. In addition, the livelihoods of individuals who depend on relatively lowly occupations such as agriculture would be in danger. It is noteworthy that the laboring poor are dependent on social welfare services from the government. In essence, neoliberal order would in essence change the form and limit the volume or magnitude of state spending. This adversely affects the level at which the state’s welfare expenditures would redress the negative outcomes for the greater section of the population. In addition, giving private capital the free rein would allow the introduction of predatory practices in sectors such as mining and forestry, which would adversely affect the marginalized populations as well as the environment.

What is at stake in a neoliberal order?

It is noteworthy that neo-liberalism seeks to overturn every other aspect of welfare states. In essence, it involves an immense transformation of the mechanisms that govern social life. Rather than the social solidarity and collective provision that comes with welfare states, individuals would be purchasing their own welfare services (Rose and Miller, 2010). These include insurance schemes, housing and health care. In essence, public provision of social security and welfare is not vital as a program for social efficiency and political stability. In essence, the lack of government or state control in the manner in which entrepreneurs carry out their business means that the environment, social welfare and even their employees will be at stake. The main aim of entrepreneurs is profit maximization irrespective of the strategies that they use. In essence, the individualism promoted by neo-liberalism would endanger social welfare especially as concerning population health. In this case, the principles of neo-liberalism undermine the rules of sustainability, justice, sharing and compassion, which are fostered by welfare states.

Where does neo-liberalism lead us?

Neo-liberalism outlines an institutional framework, where individual entrepreneurial skills and freedoms are liberated, with free trade, markets and strong private property rights characterizing it, (Rose and Miller, 2010). It assumes that self-interest is the driving force in human beings. According to neo-liberalism, societal welfare would be advanced by promoting and satisfying individual self-interest. In essence, neo-liberalism forges a society where individuals regulate their satisfaction. This is a society in which the government utilizes experts who have emerged at the point where one’s desire for self advancement intersects with social-political aspirations. The freedom to choose would be used in governing the individuals, (Rose and Miller, 2010).

What is the real face of this structure of social reality?

As much as neo-liberalism outlines a framework in which individual effort would determine the quality of life he or she lives, it is noteworthy that there would be implications on social welfare and environment. Having in mind that the government would not be regulating the activities of the entrepreneurs, the entrepreneurs will aim at maximizing their profits with little regard to the employees, environment and other players. As much as it is desirable to allow individuals to explore their capabilities and better their lives while reaping the maximum benefits of their effort, they should not be allowed to endanger the environment or other individuals.

As much as neo-liberalism (also known as globalization) would increase profitability in the world economy, its shortfalls are glaringly apparent. There would be an increase in the inequality in wealth distribution both within and between nations. In essence, as much as neo-liberalism comes by to solve the problems of welfare states, it is noteworthy that there are some aspects of welfare states that it cannot substitute. In some cases, welfare states have prospered economically as well as socially. Complementing the success is the fact that the welfare states would not sacrifice their moral commitment, which lies in ensuring that all citizens have a chance to have a dignified healthy life. Welfare states also protect all citizens from the threats posed by arbitrary market economy in neo-liberalism.

The main point behind neo-liberalism is cutting the amount of public funds used in providing social services such as insurance, health and others to the public in a collective manner. This is due to the fact that the provision of social services to the general public brings about some dependency on the state. In essence, rather than the estate planning for the social services, the ideals of free market economy would rule. The aspects of government that were held as its political responsibilities would be modified into commodities and adjusted in line with market principles. In place of regulation, there would be economic entrepreneurship with the active agents striving to optimize their advantages. In essence, in place of dependency and passivity that comes with responsible solidarity, active entrepreneurship would take center stage. Individuals would be encouraged to make every effort to maximize the quality of their lives as well as that of their families. As much as the rewards would be tagged onto individual efforts, it is noteworthy that more individuals would be reliant on private health insurance coverage. This may save quite a lot for the state in terms of monetary cost, but the social cost of relying on the private sector for the provision of health is immeasurable.

References

Nikolas Rose and Peter Miller, 2010. Political power beyond the State: problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology 2010. 272-303

(Rose and Miller, 2010)