Suchergebnisse

In a recent contribution Hendrikse (2018) has coined the concept of neo-illiberalism to capture mainstreaming of illiberal doctrines among neoliberal elites, thereby signifying a "mutation and restoration of transatlantic neoliberalism." After a critical appraisal of his concept, this essay argues that it is too early to claim that neoliberalism is mutated and suggests that the present conjuncture can better be termed ill-neoliberal instead. Following several scholars who have argued that we have arrived at an interregnum, I argue, by also applying a Gramscian framework, that neoliberalism is increasingly malfunctioning, "ill" or even dying, while something new is yet to be born. Unlike most Gramscian reasoning, however, I do not regard the rise of Trump or the European far right as "morbid symptoms", but as attempted remedies for neoliberalism. In this "restoration perspective" neoliberal elites, somewhat reluctantly, welcome illiberal actors and doctrines in an effort to keep existing hierarchies in place, or to even restore old ones. This transformation in the West towards illiberalism differs, then, from the emerging (and already) illiberal or authoritarian world powers such as China who increasingly rely on an ever-growing private economy and can therefore more rightfully be considered "neo-illiberal" (cf. Aiyar 2016). Whether such powers will be able to install a new (global) order depends foremost on the ability of the atlantic heartlands to overcome neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is subject to conflicting interpretations. Although often associated with the relation between state and market, neoliberalism is certainly beyond the scope of these relationships. It is a complex phenomenon composed of beliefs, practices and institutions. Neglecting any of these elements leads to a misunderstanding of the whole. One of the most complex issues facing those who deal with the issue of neoliberalism is to establish a connection between normative recommendations of neoliberal theory and political and economic changes in market economies. Elementary insights into economic changes over the last decades show that there is a certain correspondence between the neoliberal ideas and the trajectory of many capitalist economies, but also clear discrepancies. The goal of this paper is to investigate the analytical potential of the 'embeddedness' concept in the analysis of discrepancies between neoliberal theory and practice.

While the by now popular term "posttruth" remains, as Jayson Harsin and others argue, a contested and problematic concept, as a periodizing term it is useful in that it encapsulates collective anxieties and cognitive effects brought on by the increased commodification of knowledge, the marketization of political discourse, and the emergence of new economies and technologies of attention that fragment and destabilize relations of trust and authority across fields of inquiry (e.g. science and medicine), knowledge institutions (e.g. news and universities), and media technologies (e.g. video and photography) traditionally seen as arbiters of truth and facticity within the hegemony of Anglo-American liberalism. This paper considers the role of neoliberalism in the emergence of posttruth performance by reflecting on the work of public relations companies deployed in 2017 to promote the construction of a new power plant in New Orleans, as well as the work of the pro-Brexit campaign group Leave.EU in the run up to the 2016 referendum. Through these case studies the article demonstrates ways in which theater and performance studies can offer important critical tools with which to understand and dissect the structural conditions of posttruth in the twenty-first century.

Precarious work is a form of work that is widespread today with the influence of neoliberal policies. This form of work includes the lack of job security and some social rights, as well as the fear of dismissal an ongoing job, even if the employee has a job. In recent years, precarious work has begun to be seen in the field of social work as well as being seen in every area with the contraction of the role of the public in working life. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the insecurity that has become widespread in the field of social work in recent years, in the eyes of the social workers, working in this field.For this purpose, in-depth interviews were conducted with 14 social workers who were working without precautions.Interviews were subject to content analysis by the authors and gathered under three subtopics. As a result of the research, it has been seen that precarious social workers feel themselves in an ambiguity on the individual level and on the social level they are away from working for the benefit of the client. The effects of precarious work are not only effect on an individual level, but Precarious work has also affected the social dimension, and it has preventing services for individuals. It is necessary to investigate more precisely the effects of precarious work on employees and clients, and to prevent the loss of rights in social services. ÖzetGüvencesiz çalışma, neoliberal politikaların etkisiyle günümüzde yaygın olarak görülen bir çalışma biçimidir. Bu çalışma biçimi, iş güvencesinden ve bazı sosyal haklardan yoksun çalışmayı içerdiği gibi aynı zamanda çalışanın bir işe sahip olsa bile sürekli bir işten çıkarılma korkusu yaşamasını da ifade etmektedir. Son yıllarda güvencesiz çalışma olgusu kamunun rolünün daralmasıyla her alanda görülmekle birlikte sosyal hizmet alanında da görülmeye başlanmıştır. Bu araştırmanın amacı da son yıllarda sosyal hizmet alanında yaygınlaşmaya başlayan güvencesizliği, bu alanda çalışan sosyal hizmet uzmanların gözünden değerlendirmektir. Bu amaçla güvencesiz çalışan 14 sosyal hizmet uzmanı ile derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Görüşme dökümleri, yazarlar tarafından içerik analizine tabi tutulmuştur ve üç başlık altında toplanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda güvencesiz çalışan sosyal hizmet uzmanlarının bireysel düzlemde kendilerini belirsizlik içinde hissettiği, toplumsal düzlemde ise müracaatçı yararına çalışmadan uzaklaştıkları görülmüştür. Güvencesiz çalışmanın etkileri sadece bireysel düzlemde hissedilmemekte, toplumsal boyuta taşınarak bireylerin hizmet alma ihtiyaçlarının önüne geçmektedir. Güvencesizliğin çalışanlar ve müracaatçılar üzerindeki etkilerinin daha kapsamlı bir şekilde araştırılması ve sosyal hizmet alanındaki hak kayıplarının önlenmesi gereklidir.

Over the last four decades, the rise of the socio-political formation widely referred to as neoliberalism has seen a particular model of freedom – the freedom of free markets, property rights, and entrepreneurial self-ownership – gain prominence in a variety of ways around the globe. More recently, there has been a surge in critical activity around neoliberalism, which has led to the emergence of an increasingly settled understanding of its political, economic, and cultural mechanics. Most critiques, however, have proven reluctant to engage neoliberalism on the territory that it has conspicuously made its own: namely, freedom. This special collection aims to rethink, re-evaluate, and renovate the many meanings of freedom beyond its limited economic function in neoliberal theory and practice, and to imagine what freedom might look like in a world beyond neoliberalism. The introduction provides an overview of the current conjuncture, in which there is a growing realisation that neoliberal governance has failed to deliver on its promises of freedom. We argue that this realisation has made possible, and necessary, the exploration of new histories and new futures of freedom. The introduction concludes with a brief summary of the articles that comprise this special collection.

Over the last four decades, the rise of the socio-political formation widely referred to as neoliberalism has seen a particular model of freedom – the freedom of free markets, property rights, and entrepreneurial self-ownership – gain prominence in a variety of ways around the globe. More recently, there has been a surge in critical activity around neoliberalism, which has led to the emergence of an increasingly settled understanding of its political, economic, and cultural mechanics. Most critiques, however, have proven reluctant to engage neoliberalism on the territory that it has conspicuously made its own: namely, freedom. This special collection aims to rethink, re-evaluate, and renovate the many meanings of freedom beyond its limited economic function in neoliberal theory and practice, and to imagine what freedom might look like in a world beyond neoliberalism. The introduction provides an overview of the current conjuncture, in which there is a growing realisation that neoliberal governance has failed to deliver on its promises of freedom. We argue that this realisation has made possible, and necessary, the exploration of new histories and new futures of freedom. The introduction concludes with a brief summary of the articles that comprise this special collection.

Over the last four decades, the rise of the socio-political formation widely referred to as neoliberalism has seen a particular model of freedom – the freedom of free markets, property rights, and entrepreneurial self-ownership – gain prominence in a variety of ways around the globe. More recently, there has been a surge in critical activity around neoliberalism, which has led to the emergence of an increasingly settled understanding of its political, economic, and cultural mechanics. Most critiques, however, have proven reluctant to engage neoliberalism on the territory that it has conspicuously made its own: namely, freedom. This special collection aims to rethink, re-evaluate, and renovate the many meanings of freedom beyond its limited economic function in neoliberal theory and practice, and to imagine what freedom might look like in a world beyond neoliberalism. The introduction provides an overview of the current conjuncture, in which there is a growing realisation that neoliberal governance has failed to deliver on its promises of freedom. We argue that this realisation has made possible, and necessary, the exploration of new histories and new futures of freedom. The introduction concludes with a brief summary of the articles that comprise this special collection.

The following essay takes the topic of this special issue as an opportunity to not just investigate Deleuze's "Postscript on Control Societies," but to look more generally at the text's place within his work as a whole. Indeed, as various authors have observed, there are a number of aspects that clearly distinguish the essay from the bulk of Deleuze's other writings. First, what the Postscript aims at is a very direct and immediate "diagnosis of the present" (Foucault 1999: 91). Despite its brevity, the essay therefore entails a wide-ranging account of the (social, economic, cultural, and technological) 'system' which was about to take hold when Deleuze wrote the essay (1990) – and which still seems pervasive today. Second, the Postscript represents one of the few instances where Deleuze addresses new media, the digital, cyberspace, and computers: technologies, that is, which in the last few decades have thoroughly transformed the world we live in (cf. Galloway 2012). Third, while Deleuze is usually considered to be a thinker of affirmative creation and a joyous politics of difference and becoming, the Postscript may be the text that most evidently lends itself to discovering not only a more contemporary, but also a somewhat 'darker' Deleuze (cf. Culp 2016). For although it underlines the necessity of "finding new weapons" and developing "new forms of resistance" – pointing out that the question is not "whether the old or new system is harsher or more bearable" (Deleuze 1995: 178) – one can argue that the Postscript's general perspective and tone is in fact more bleak and pessimistic than most of Deleuze's other writings.

Starting from Michel Foucault's considerations dedicated to economic knowledge (especially in Il faut défendre la société and Naissance de la biopolitique), this paper is about setting up a possible theoretical framework in which to situate the relationship between political power and neoliberalism as they appear in their modern articulation, analyzing in depth how international governmental organizations – such as, for example, the European Central Bank, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund – are involved in this process.

In this discussion, my aim is to raise critical practical and theoretical questions as regards multiculturalism. I wish to end with a sketch of a program for a viable multiculturalism. The issues in this relatively new area of political and philosophical thought are not restricted to theoretical issues. They involve practical questions of how it is possible to implement multiculturalism in more than a one-sided way in the current neoliberal economic context. In view of this aspect of the issue, it has already become a topic of serious public debate. ; Este ensayo trae a colación importantes puntos, tanto teóricos como prácticos,desde la perspectiva de la teoría crítica, con referencia al multiculturalismo. Me interesa delinear lo que sería una línea programática para un multiculturalismo viable. Tomando en cuenta el contexto neoliberal actual, me interesa enfatizar el problema práctico de hacer posible un multiculturalismo que no sea exclusivamente neoliberal, problema que ha logrado instalarse en el debate público con toda su intensidad.

This paper entitled, "Neoliberalism and international organizations" examines Neoliberalism as the dominant political ideology shaping international relations. Neoliberalism dictates the policies of the government, and shapes the actions of key institutions such as world trade organization (WTO), World Bank and international monetary fund (IMF). This article would discuss the nature, history, strengths, weaknesses, and implications of neoliberalism in the international political system taking IMF as a case study. This paper argues that the neoliberal perspective relies on the assumption of rationality that the states calculate the cost and benefits of different courses of action and choose the course of action that gives them the highest net pay off. This paper concluded that the neoliberal theory of international relations is a powerful way to understand the dynamics of international organizations (IOs) and international conflict and cooperation more generally.

UID/HIS/04209/2019 DL 57/2016/CP1453/CT0020 ; Este artigo analisa o 'Neoliberalismo' a partir de uma perspetiva histórica, enquanto um movimento político transnacional com uma forte inclinação epistémica, apostado em reconfigurar o Estado e construir uma ordem de mercado competitiva. Recorrendo a contributos metodológicos da História Intelectual e da Economia Política, o artigo debruça-se especificamente sobre as reflexões historiográficas levadas a cabo nos primórdios do Neoliberalismo por alguns dos seus mais destacados pensadores. Ao examinar os escritos de vários intelectuais que integraram a Sociedade do Mont Pèlerin – Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, T.S. Ashton, Walter Eucken, Ludwig von Mises e Milton Friedman – o artigo avalia o papel da interpretação histórica no discurso Neoliberal, destacando a sua conexão com o pensamento económico. This article analyses 'Neoliberalism' from a historical perspective, as a transnational political movement with a strong epistemic bent, engaged in reconfiguring state institutions and building a competitive market order. Drawing on methodological insights from Intellectual History and Political Economy, it focuses on the epistemic engagement of early Neoliberal thinkers in the field of historiography. By examining the writings of prominent intellectuals who participated in the Mont Pèlerin Society, such as Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, T.S. Ashton, Walter Eucken, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman, the article assesses the role of historical interpretation in Neoliberal discourse, highlighting its connection with economic theory. ; publishersversion ; published

Neoliberalism is dead. Again. Yet the philosophy of the free market and the strong state has an uncanny capacity to survive and even thrive in crisis. This volume breaks with the caricature of neoliberalism as a simple belief in market fundamentalism to show how neoliberal thinkers developed concepts and approaches in economic theory, welfare regimes and science philosophy, perceived institutions from the family to the university, disagreed over issues from intellectual property rights and human behaviour to social complexity and monetary order, and sought to win consent for their project through new honours, disciples, and networks. ; The publication of this book was funded by the Open Access Publishing Fund of the Leibniz Association.

Starting from Michel Foucault's considerations dedicated to economic knowledge (especially in Il faut défendre la société and Naissance de la biopolitique), this paper is about setting up a possible theoretical framework in which to situate the relationship between political power and neoliberalism as they appear in their modern articulation, analyzing in depth how international governmental organizations – such as, for example, the European Central Bank, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund – are involved in this process.

The Neoliberalism for some groups was considered superior to other economic systems, but the reality is the ideology fails to provide for the people welfare and has caused excessive economic inequality. Neoliberalism is the current and emerging economic paradigm characterized by the conventional paradigm that seeks to separate the economic activity of all religious values ​​and the release of government intervention through free markets, privatization, and globalization. Unlike the Islamic values ​​contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah, which has been able to become the main cornerstone of an economic system, the Islamic economic system. Islam teaches a balance between individual economic freedom with justice and the common good. Because it includes outlook and way of life as a whole as well (kÄffah) as Islam has a goal of creating an economic system with the principles of justice (al-'adl) for all groups. While neoliberalism is an economic ideology that is based on capitalism, and when Neoliberalism applied in the economic system, it will caused more harm than good and benefit.