Search results

AbstractThis article aims to discuss to what extent populist parties with opposite ideological backgrounds have differed in their policies towards inherited external financial liberalization (EFL). Building upon a comparative case study centred on Argentina under Kirchnerism (2003–15) and Hungary under Viktor Orbán (since 2010), I conclude that both experiences led to a partial EFL reversal. However, reflecting their opposite ideological underpinnings, each subtype of populism opted to restrict a different dimension of EFL. Argentina's left-wing populism re-regulated cross-border capital flows, harming financial operators, foreign investors and primary exporters through capital controls and export surrenders. These interventionist capital account regulations were needed to shield expansionary macroeconomic policies that attended the interests of subordinate socioeconomic strata, fuelling the tension with financial markets and domestic economic elites. Conversely, Hungary's right-wing populism focused on the ownership structure of the banking sector, aiming to redistribute assets from foreign to domestic private banks and improve the credit conditions for native capitalists. In this case, even when resorting to macroeconomic heterodoxy, the maintenance of fiscal balance and price stability retained support from both foreign investors and domestic business groups, mitigating tensions derived from financial nationalism.

The neoliberal globalization drives the social, economic, cultural, and ideological worldwide processes in the 21st century, which takes precedence to the division of each nation, community, region, and the pattern of thinking, including the constructions of walls, huge numbers of refugee and emigrations, and many conflict and terrorist activities. According to a 2019 Oxfam's report, a new billionaire is created every two days and the world's 26 richest people own as much as the poorest 50 percent. By making this polarization and inequality escalate, neoliberal globalization has fueled the chronic problem of overaccumulation and militarization. This article focuses on the present of neoliberal globalization under the Covid-19 pandemic. It entails a critical reconsideration of modern capitalism, which now brings deep misery to human history, including poverty, refugees, immigration, transnational crimes, climate change and pandemic. Furthermore, fundamental human rights are violated as a consequence of the utter control of the market, competition, and deregulation by multinational companies. ; La globalización neoliberal impulsa los procesos sociales, económicos, culturales e ideológicos en todo el mundo en el siglo XXI, lo que precede a la división de cada nación, comunidad, región y el patrón de pensamiento, incluida la construcción de muros, un gran número de refugiados y emigraciones, y muchos conflictos y actividades terroristas. Según el informe de Oxfam de 2019, se crea un nuevo multimillonario cada dos días y las 26 personas más ricas del mundo poseen tanto como el 50% más pobre. Al aumentar esta polarización y desigualdad, la globalización neoliberal alimentó el problema crónico de la sobreacumulación y la militarización. Este artículo se centra en el presente de la globalización neoliberal bajo la pandemia del Covid-19. Significa una reconsideración crítica del capitalismo moderno que trae ahora una profunda miseria a la historia de la humanidad, lo que incluiye la pobreza, los refugiados, la inmigración, los crímenes transnacionales, el cambio climático y la pandemia. Además, se violan los derechos humanos fundamentales como consecuencia del control supremo del mercado, la competencia y la desregulación por parte de las empresas multinacionales.

La globalización neoliberal impulsa los procesos sociales, económicos, culturales e ideológicos en todo el mundo en el siglo XXI, lo que precede a la división de cada nación, comunidad, región y el patrón de pensamiento, incluida la construcción de muros, un gran número de refugiados y emigraciones, y muchos conflictos y actividades terroristas. Según el informe de Oxfam de 2019, se crea un nuevo multimillonario cada dos días y las 26 personas más ricas del mundo poseen tanto como el 50% más pobre. Al aumentar esta polarización y desigualdad, la globalización neoliberal alimentó el problema crónico de la sobreacumulación y la militarización. Este artículo se centra en el presente de la globalización neoliberal bajo la pandemia del Covid-19. Significa una reconsideración crítica del capitalismo moderno que trae ahora una profunda miseria a la historia de la humanidad, lo que incluiye la pobreza, los refugiados, la inmigración, los crímenes transnacionales, el cambio climático y la pandemia. Además, se violan los derechos humanos fundamentales como consecuencia del control supremo del mercado, la competencia y la desregulación por parte de las empresas multinacionales. ; The neoliberal globalization drives the social, economic, cultural, and ideological worldwide processes in the 21st century, which takes precedence to the division of each nation, community, region, and the pattern of thinking, including the constructions of walls, huge numbers of refugee and emigrations, and many conflict and terrorist activities. According to a 2019 Oxfam's report, a new billionaire is created every two days and the world's 26 richest people own as much as the poorest 50 percent. By making this polarization and inequality escalate, neoliberal globalization has fueled the chronic problem of overaccumulation and militarization. This article focuses on the present of neoliberal globalization under the Covid-19 pandem-ic. It entails a critical reconsideration of modern capitalism, which now brings deep misery to human history, including poverty, refugees, immigration, transnational crimes, climate change and pandemic. Furthermore, fundamental human rights are violated as a consequence of the utter control of the market, competition, and deregulation by multinational companies. ; Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales

Benefitting from the commodity boom progressive governments across South America have sought to move away from the neoliberal policies adopted previously by strengthening the role of the state and using revenues from commodity exports to address social concerns. This approach, often called neo-extractivism, has become the main development strategy over the past 15 years. Yet, the increasingly intensive and extensive natural resource exploitation underlying this development strategy has also led to multiple protests and contestations across South America. This paper thus examines the relationship between neo-extractivism as a development strategy and the quality of democracy under progressive governments in South America. On the one hand, neo-extractivism has allowed states to become more inclusive by paying attention to social concerns which in turn has been an important element in the legitimacy of progressive governments. On the other hand, the reliance on neo-extractivism as the main development strategy poses important constraints on the ability of post-neoliberal states to build more substantive democracies which could take into account a variety of positions, give citizens a say in decisions directly affecting their livelihoods and promote public debates on key questions confronting society.

This article discusses why Latin American post-neoliberal parties have varied in their strategies of capital flow management. In brief, I propose that two complementary channels favor the pursuit of heterodox strategies: high degree of pressure from popular sectors that push for an immediate macroeconomic reorientation, and strategic allies among economic elites that mitigate the credibility losses associated with this decision. The comparative case-study on Argentina under Kirchnerism (2003-2015) and Brazil under the Workers' Party (2003-2016) provides support for this argument. In the former case, the ruling party had to address the demands from strong and autonomous unions and social movements, while counting on a strategic alliance with domestic manufacturing producers. In the latter, conversely, the governing party lacked strategic allies among economic elites and could overlook the agenda of weak and subordinate popular organisations. In other words, both popular and elite channels favored the adoption of a heterodox strategy of capital flow management by Kirchnerism, while neither of them did in the case of the Workers' Party. In Argentina, the option for heterodoxy also contributed to the repoliticisation of capital flow management by returning the visibility of this policy issue and impelling policymakers to go beyond technocratic discourses.

ABSTRACTBenefiting from the commodity boom, progressive governments across South America have sought to move away from the neoliberal policies adopted previously by strengthening the role of the state and using revenues from commodity exports to address social concerns. This approach, often called neo‐extractivism, has become the main development strategy over the past 15 years. Yet, the increasingly intensive and extensive natural resource exploitation underlying this development strategy has also led to multiple protests and contestations across South America. This article thus examines the relationship between neo‐extractivism as a development strategy and the quality of democracy under progressive governments in South America. On the one hand, neo‐extractivism has allowed states to become more inclusive by paying attention to social concerns which in turn has been an important element in the legitimacy of progressive governments. On the other hand, the reliance on neo‐extractivism as the main development strategy poses important constraints on the ability of post‐neoliberal states to build more substantive democracies which could take into account a variety of positions, give citizens a say in decisions directly affecting their livelihoods, and promote public debates on key questions confronting society.

Each practical action in rural areas should be based on a comprehensive, new, and innovative theoretical paradigm. For nearly three decades, the global economic system has embraced rural entrepreneurship as a "productive" and innovative strategy in rural development in many countries, including both underdeveloped and developed countries. At present, we have large companies, which due to government development interventions, are replaced with small- and medium-sized businesses under inflexible and extreme entrepreneurialism. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to shed light on the prevailing entrepreneurship practice and discourse, criticize them, and finally introduce a new paradigm known as "paradigm of rural prosperity" (PRP). In this work, Aram Ziai's theory of skeptical post-development was used, along with Campbell Jones and André Spicer's critical theory of entrepreneurship and Rosenqvist's theory of the conceptualization of rurality and rural environment called "hermeneutical realism". The present paper attempts to base the paradigm of rural prosperity on three pillars of analysis and explanation: (a) rural embodiment, (b) neoliberalism, and (c) concept of sustainability. Although some case studies in Iran have been used as empirical evidence, this paper argues that the paradigm of rural prosperity is universal in nature and can be used in any geographical and cultural context to provide new rural development.

Each practical action in rural areas should be based on a comprehensive, new, and innovative theoretical paradigm. For nearly three decades, the global economic system has embraced rural entrepreneurship as a "productive" and innovative strategy in rural development in many countries, including both underdeveloped and developed countries. At present, we have large companies, which due to government development interventions, are replaced with small- and medium-sized businesses under inflexible and extreme entrepreneurialism. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to shed light on the prevailing entrepreneurship practice and discourse, criticize them, and finally introduce a new paradigm known as "paradigm of rural prosperity" (PRP). In this work, Aram Ziai's theory of skeptical post-development was used, along with Campbell Jones and André Spicer's critical theory of entrepreneurship and Rosenqvist's theory of the conceptualization of rurality and rural environment called "hermeneutical realism". The present paper attempts to base the paradigm of rural prosperity on three pillars of analysis and explanation: (a) rural embodiment, (b) neoliberalism, and (c) concept of sustainability. Although some case studies in Iran have been used as empirical evidence, this paper argues that the paradigm of rural prosperity is universal in nature and can be used in any geographical and cultural context to provide new rural development.

Durante la última década, América Latina -y particularmente Sudamérica- ha sido el terreno de disputa y resistencia a la hegemonía del neo-liberalismo, de la mano de gobiernos y movimientos sociales. Muchos autores han afirmado que se trata de un viraje hacia la izquierda de los latinoamericanos como reflejo de la frustración con el fracaso del modelo neo-liberal que marcó las décadas precedentes. Este trabajo explora algunas de las políticas superadoras del neo-liberalismo que han sido o están siendo implementadas en la región y examina la emergencia de un nuevo modelo denominado 'post-neoliberal'. Se argumenta que mientras los gobiernos llamados post-neoliberales han mostrado una mayor "sensibilidad social" aún se observa en muchos países cierta continuidad de la doctrina neoliberal y de las estructuras de poder que reproducen la exclusión social y la desigualdad. El "postneoliberalismo" se trata todavía de una búsqueda inacabada." ; During the last decade, Latin America –and particularly South America– has been the terrain of dispute and resistance to the hegemony of neo-liberalism by different governments and social movements. New winds are blowing and, some argue, there has been a 'left turn' in the hearts and minds of Latin Americans as a sign of frustration with the failures of the neoliberal model that marked previous decades. This work explores some of the policies that transcend neoliberalism and have been or are being implemented in the region. The work scrutinizes the emergence of a new post-neoliberal model arguing that while the so-called post-neoliberal governments have shown more 'social sensitivity', there is, in many countries, a continuation of the neoliberal doctrine and the power structures that reproduce social exclusion and inequality. 'Post-neoliberalism' in Latin America is, thus, yet an unconcluded quest. ; Publicado en la sección "Estudio 1". ; Instituto de Integración Latinoamericana

El discurso correísta y su accionar gubernamental está analizado en sus fundamentos históricos e ideológicos esenciales y en los conflictos relacionados con el quehacer gubernamental en lo económico, lo comunicacional, lo socio-cultural y lo legislativo.

During the last decade, Latin America – and particularly South America – has been the terrain of dispute and resistance to the hegemony of neo-liberalism by different governments and social movements. New winds are blowing and, some argue, there has been a 'left turn' in the hearts and minds of Latin Americans as a sign of frustration with the failures of the neoliberal model that marked previous decades. This work explores some of the policies that transcend neoliberalism and have been or are being implemented in the region. The work scrutinizes the emergence of a new post-neoliberal model arguing that while the so-called post-neoliberal governments have shown more 'social sensitivity', there is, in many countries, a continuation of the neoliberal doctrine and the power structures that reproduce social exclusion and inequality. 'Post- neoliberalism' in Latin America is, thus, yet an unconcluded quest. ; Durante la última década, América Latina - y particularmente Sudamérica - ha sido el terreno de disputa y resistencia a la hegemonía del neo-liberalismo, de la mano de gobiernos y movimientos sociales. Muchos autores han afirmado que se trata de un viraje hacia la izquierda de los latinoamericanos como reflejo de la frustración con el fracaso del modelo neo-liberal que marcó las décadas precedentes. Este trabajo explora algunas de las políticas superadoras del neo-liberalismo que han sido o están siendo implementadas en la región y examina la emergencia de un nuevo modelo denominado 'post-neoliberal'. Se argumenta que mientras los gobiernos llamados post-neoliberales han mostrado una mayor "sensibilidad social" aún se observa en muchos países cierta continuidad de la doctrina neoliberal y de las estructuras de poder que reproducen la exclusión social y la desigualdad. El "post-neoliberalismo" se trata todavía de una búsqueda inacabada.

ABSTRACTThis virtual issue reviews the post‐neoliberalism literature published in Development and Change between 2012 and 2018. It reflects on recent and ongoing, multiple experiences of resistance to speculative, extractive, inequitable and unsustainable development and the demands for alternatives that emerged in Latin America. The argument is developed through an analysis of the 18 most relevant articles published in this journal, that make a major contribution to three key interrelated debates, namely: the meaning and policies associated with post‐neoliberalism; challenges of citizenship and democracy; and the sustainability agenda. Collectively, the selected articles provide a detailed and much‐needed discussion about the key achievements, limitations and legacies of post‐neoliberalism.