Suchergebnisse

Mainstream interpretations of the interplay between technology and society have revolved around three theoretical frameworks: technological determinism, social constructionism, and neoliberalism. All three agree on the progressive potentials of technology for social and economic development. However, each suffers from fundamental blind spots regarding the regressive logic of capitalist market competition, which constrains the possibility for technology-society synergy in service of human solidarity and a sustainable civilization.

Contemporary Southeast Asia is a diverse region that is fully integrated into the world economy. Its eleven constituent countries are distinct with unique historical, political, economic, and cultural configurations – as such, they develop unevenly within, and respond accordingly to, the evolution of the global capitalist system. This chapter provides a survey of literatures, themes and debates that have significantly contributed to the study of Southeast Asia from the discipline of international political economy (IPE). It shows how specific IPE scholarship about Southeast Asia since the 1950s have been framed within the general theories of development (i.e., modernization and dependency) and capitalism (i.e., neoclassical economics, historical institutionalism, and social conflict approach). In particular, the areas of inquiry of these competing perspectives - either in the analysis of individual countries or the region as a whole -revolve around the issue of the relationship between the state, market, and society. ; peerReviewed

Juego argues that the new Internationale's "primary organizational function should be the global coordination of actions of progressive grassroots movements from country to country." He calls for a 'learning organization,' where the new Internationale supports "a continuous dialogue between bottom-up and top-down approaches to decision-making." He sees it as "[a]kin to a global coordinating council" meaning that it works to integrate and synthesize the "varying initiatives, campaigns, and mass actions at all geographical levels of membership" while remaining mindful of the "dialectics between reform and revolution." The new Internationale must, moreover, be "grounded on a pragmatic understanding of realpolitik especially in struggles at national and local scales," and institutionalize a commitment to dialogue, research, and discussion.

A case is made here for the desirability and viability of the late Samir Amin's call for a new International. However, the project to forge a political organization of the global justice movement must in the first instance draw lessons from the limitations of the recent network structure of new social movements, notably the World Social Forum, and rectify the failures of the old internationals of left-wing cadres. The actualization of such a radical idea also needs to observe the realpolitik of class formation and class struggle under conditions of the imperialistic globalization of capitalism today. Envisioned as a plural and participatory learning organization, the new International's progression should be evolutionary and its strategic engagements have to balance the imperatives of political realism with the ideals of democratic values. ; peerReviewed

The regime of authoritarian neoliberalism is underway. In contemporary political economy of governance, this regime has been construed as a crisis response of the capitalist class to manage the conflict-ridden consequences of economic globalization; and, as an ideological project of a section of the ruling elites to justify the embedding of market-oriented development processes in a politically repressive government institution. To contribute to recent scholarship attempts at defining the character and tendencies of this emergent regime, the article traces one of its key ideological antecedents from Carl Schmitt's earlier formulation for a "strong state, free economy". It then presents a survey of how this concept articulating the compatibility of authoritarianism and capitalism has manifested in related theories and actual policies since the long twentieth century – notably in: German ordoliberalism, Thatcherism and Reaganomics, the Kirkpatrick Doctrine and Political Development Theory, the Asian Values discourse, and the Effective State and Good Governance agendas. The governing authority in this regime can be called an authoritarian-neoliberal state.

After toppling the 61-year dominant Barisan Nasional through a historic election victory in May 2018, expectations are high for the new ruling government led by Mahathir Mohamad and the Pakatan Harapan to fulfil their promises for socio-economic reforms and regime change in Malaysia. But what have been the institutions of the prevailing regime that need to be reformed and changed? This article offers a critical review of the evolving development agendas since the 1990s of the successive governments of Mahathir Mohamad, Abdullah Badawi, and Najib Razak, each couched in different catchphrases: Wawasan 2020, Islam Hadhari, and 1Malaysia. A close reading of these programs suggests that their substance articulates two persistent logics: the ruling elite's constant requirement for political stability enforced by a strong state; and, the need to adapt to the demands and opportunities of accumulation in specific phases of Malaysia's capitalist development in the context of globalization. The analysis reveals the attempts at maintaining authoritarian neoliberalism, or a neoliberal economy embedded in an authoritarian polity, as the de facto social regime in contemporary Malaysia. By examining policy documents, speeches, and news reports, the article discloses how this regime had been enunciated or reified in public discourses, policies, and actions of the respective administrations.

After toppling the 61-year dominant Barisan Nasional through a historic election victory in May 2018, expectations are high for the new ruling government led by Mahathir Mohamad and the Pakatan Harapan to fulfil their promises for socio-economic reforms and regime change in Malaysia. But what have been the institutions of the prevailing regime that need to be reformed and changed? This article offers a critical review of the evolving development agendas since the 1990s of the successive governments of Mahathir Mohamad, Abdullah Badawi, and Najib Razak, each couched in different catchphrases: Wawasan 2020, Islam Hadhari, and 1Malaysia. A close reading of these programs suggests that their substance articulates two persistent logics: the ruling elite's constant requirement for political stability enforced by a strong state; and, the need to adapt to the demands and opportunities of accumulation in specific phases of Malaysia's capitalist development in the context of globalization. The analysis reveals the attempts at maintaining authoritarian neoliberalism, or a neoliberal economy embedded in an authoritarian polity, as the de facto social regime in contemporary Malaysia. By examining policy documents, speeches, and news reports, the article discloses how this regime had been enunciated or reified in public discourses, policies, and actions of the respective administrations. (ASEAS/GIGA)

After toppling the 61-year dominant Barisan Nasional through a historic election victory in May 2018, expectations are high for the new ruling government led by Mahathir Mohamad and the Pakatan Harapan to fulfil their promises for socio-economic reforms and regime change in Malaysia. But what have been the institutions of the prevailing regime that need to be reformed and changed? This article offers a critical review of the evolving development agendas since the 1990s of the successive governments of Mahathir Mohamad, Abdullah Badawi, and Najib Razak, each couched in different catchphrases: Wawasan 2020, Islam Hadhari, and 1Malaysia. A close reading of these programs suggests that their substance articulates two persistent logics: the ruling elite's constant requirement for political stability enforced by a strong state; and, the need to adapt to the demands and opportunities of accumulation in specific phases of Malaysia's capitalist development in the context of globalization. The analysis reveals the attempts at maintaining authoritarian neoliberalism, or a neoliberal economy embedded in an authoritarian polity, as the de facto social regime in contemporary Malaysia. By examining policy documents, speeches, and news reports, the article discloses how this regime had been enunciated or reified in public discourses, policies, and actions of the respective administrations. ; peerReviewed

The regime of authoritarian neoliberalism is underway. In contemporary political economy of governance, this regime has been construed as a crisis response of the capitalist class to manage the conflict-ridden consequences of economic globalization; and, as an ideological project of a section of the ruling elites to justify the embedding of market-oriented development processes in a politically repressive government institution. To contribute to recent scholarship attempts at defining the character and tendencies of this emergent regime, the article traces one of its key ideological antecedents from Carl Schmitt's earlier formulation for a "strong state, free economy". It then presents a survey of how this concept articulating the compatibility of authoritarianism and capitalism has manifested in related theories and actual policies since the long twentieth century – notably in: German ordoliberalism, Thatcherism and Reaganomics, the Kirkpatrick Doctrine and Political Development Theory, the Asian Values discourse, and the Effective State and Good Governance agendas. The governing authority in this regime can be called an authoritarian-neoliberal state. ; peerReviewed

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte led a phenomenal campaign to win the 2016 national election. During his first two years in power Duterte has become the protagonist and exemplar of a key new development – the social formation of a regime of authoritarian populism. Based on an analysis of news reports, public debates, survey results, and official policy documents from 2017, the article examines various features of this emergent regime and then illuminates the historical-institutional mechanisms that brought it about. The inquiry is predicated on an understanding that the old EDSA Republic's liberal-democratic regime has been marked by intractable socio-economic crises since its installation in 1986. This triggered different political tendencies and trajectories that Duterte has been able to mould into a new mode of regulation and governance. The central discussion elucidates some of the significant features that constitute the process through which the new regime of authoritarian populism is taking shape. The conclusion highlights the mutually reinforcing features of the dying EDSA-type liberal democracy and the emerging Duterte-led authoritarian populism. This suggests that the former has been a spawning ground for the latter. ; peerReviewed

The study attempts to contribute to an understanding of the political economy of contemporary Southeast Asia in analytical, conceptual, empirical, and theoretical terms. It offers a critical explanation of the historical specificities of capitalist development in the region through a comparative examination of the evolution of two diverse domestic socioeconomic formations of the Philippines and Malaysia against the background of neoliberal globalization. It argues that an understanding of the distinctiveness of capitalist development in the region demands an analysis of the structure-agency dynamics in global and local accumulation regimes which entails a comprehension of the dialectical relationships (i.e., the interrelations and contradictions) between processes, interests, and forms in/of capitalist accumulation. In particular, the study examines the dialectics between the prevailing process of neoliberal reproduction (i.e., the reproduction of the institutions and relations associated with neoliberal capitalism), the interests of the dominant elite class (i.e., stakes of dominant local and transnational political-economic classes with vested interests in accumulation of wealth and power), and an emerging social form of authoritarian liberalism (i.e., a political-economic regime whereby a neoliberal economy operates within an authoritarian polity). The empirical examination of the studied cases shows how elite interests shape, mediate, negotiate, or resist the process of neoliberal reproduction, producing and encouraging the social form of authoritarian liberalism. Importantly, it highlights the reality that the elite interests-driven process of neoliberal reproduction which reinforces authoritarian liberalism is replete with structural contradictions and agential conflicts in both latent and manifest ways. Analytically, the study devises a framework using a critical political economy approach to analyze the specificities of the hegemonic process, interests, and form of capitalist development in Southeast Asia, the Philippines, and Malaysia – a framework which may also be utilized to examine other existing, prospective, or counter-hegemonic processes, interests, and forms. Conceptually, it introduces and develops the key concepts of neoliberal reproduction, elite interests, and authoritarian liberalism that are essential in understanding the contemporary shape of capitalism in the Philippines and Malaysia. Empirically, it establishes the similarities, differences, and hence specificities of capitalist development on the bases of these concepts in the contexts of the peculiar local accumulation regimes of the Philippines and Malaysia whose points of comparison include factors such as political history, economic specialization, class formation, and social institutions. The exposition of the empirical cases illuminates: the nature of capitalist diversity under conditions of combined and uneven development in globalizing capitalism; the realpolitik of the elite capture of the neoliberalism ideology and the neoliberalization process itself; the existence of elite conflicts alongside political-business alliances in the drive for accumulation of dominant classes in specific neoliberalizing regimes; and the degree of embeddedness of the institutions and practices of authoritarian liberalism in different socio-economic and political contexts. Theoretically, as an outcome of these analytical, conceptual, and empirical endeavours, the study produces a critical theoretical framework—derived from a synergy between classical Marxism, Coxian method of historical structure, and social conflict theory—as a contribution to an explanation of contemporary capitalist development which, at the same time, challenges, critiques, or substantiates established theories, literatures, and discourses that offer various interpretations of issues and phenomena like globalization, state-capital relations, regime formation, state restructuring, elite dynamics, socio-political change, institutional reforms, and economic development. Overall, the study's analytical, conceptual, empirical, and theoretical contributions have implications for social science research, especially in the area of the political economy of development. Consequently, it has normative implications for the vision and strategies for alternative futures and social change.

Against the background of ongoing global crisis of capitalism, the articlereflects on the most important and intriguing contributions of the French Regulation School within the Marxist tradition to critical international political economy. In particular, it examines and critiques the respective theses of principal regulationists—Aglietta, Lipietz, and Boyer—about capitalist stability, contradictions, dynamics, and relations. Aglietta's limited conception of crises and contradictions is scrutinised by proposing aframework of agential-structural interrelations—specifically, the interactions between class struggle and market-dependence—in understanding capitalist relations and processes. Lipietz's level of analysis on 'national' capitalism is questioned with a comprehension of the global character and universalising tendencies of capitalism. And Boyer's reading of finance-led growth as the new regime of accumulation is explored with an argument to put more significance on reproduction than regulation and to bring back production and its interaction with the system of exchange in the analysis of capitalistdevelopment. The conclusion proposes a synthesis of regulation approach and theconcepts from classical Marxism to better capture the specificities of contemporary capitalistdevelopment.

The paper attempts to contribute to a critical reading of contemporary global political economy. It provides an analysis through an empirical exposition of the latent and manifest ways neoliberalism is being reproduced institutionally and relationally despite and because of the ongoing global capitalist crisis. To this end, three interrelated themes are highlighted here: first, the constitutive role and functional character of crises in the evolution of capitalism and the reproduction of its current neoliberal configuration; second, the continuity of long-held ideas of groups ranging from multilateral organizations to global justice movements – hence, the absence of relatively new perspectives – as evident in their respective policy prescriptions and crisis responses that effectively perpetuate the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism; and third, the emergence of the political-economic regime of authoritarian liberalism in East and Southeast Asia as a perceptible consequence of the intensifying crisis.

The paper attempts to contribute to a critical reading of contemporary global political economy. It provides an analysis through an empirical exposition of the latent and manifest ways neoliberalism is being reproduced institutionally and relationally despite and because of the ongoing global capitalist crisis. To this end, three interrelated themes are highlighted here: first, the constitutive role and functional character of crises in the evolution of capitalism and the reproduction of its current neoliberal configuration; second, the continuity of long-held ideas of groups ranging from multilateral organizations to global justice movements – hence, the absence of relatively new perspectives – as evident in their respective policy prescriptions and crisis responses that effectively perpetuate the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism; and third, the emergence of the political-economic regime of authoritarian liberalism in East and Southeast Asia as a perceptible consequence of the intensifying crisis.