Suchergebnisse

Corruption levels increased significantly across the newly independ-ent states of the former Soviet Union.1 The dominant approach to un-derstanding this developmental problem has been informed by neolib-eral models of market-led development2 which tend to under-socialize human action. Critical of this approach, this paper presents a case study from post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan, widely perceived to be among the most corrupt of the post-Soviet states. Drawing on ethnographic and interview data collected during 2011 and 2012, I argue that the domi-nant approach has misled attempts to address this problem through paying insufficient attention to different meanings engaged in transac-tions typically deemed petty corruption and the moral discourses ac-companying distribution of this illicit wealth.

Argentines Fervently hoped that the transition from authoritarianism to democracy would reverse decades of economic decline and return their country to the path of modernization. Raúl Alfonsín and his Radical party assumed office in December 1983 confident of reconciling democratization with rapid development and social justice. This optimism was soon shattered, the victim of a succession of failed stabilization plans. Finally, a catastrophic economic collapse led to a convincing victory by Peronist Carlos Menem in the May 1989 presidential contest.Carlos Menem assumed the presidency on 8 July 1989 in the midst of raging hyperinflation: from August 1988 through July 1989, consumer prices had risen 3,610% and wholesale prices had skyrocketed 5,062%. Menem responded with neoliberal, "free-market" reforms designed to restructure radically the beleaguered Argentine economy along the lines of the so-called "Washington Consensus."

AbstractSince the 2008 financial crisis, depictions of neoliberalism as a religion, system of belief, and "kind of faith" have multiplied in an attempt to explain neoliberalism's remarkable power and resilience. These accounts, however, have remained largely impressionistic. In this article, I interrogate the meanings, implications, and value of conceptualizing neoliberalism as religion and advance two main claims. First, the power of neoliberalism stems from being a rationality of government that continuously evokes religious meanings and significations. Neoliberalism displaces and redraws the boundary between secular and religious and appropriates an aura of sacredness while concealing itself behind an authoritative secular rational façade. Second, one of the outcomes of the neoliberal "sacralization" of the market has been the emergence of so-called "post-truth politics." The latter, I contend, can be conceptualized as a neoliberal "truth market" of news production, circulation, and consumption that is governed simultaneously by logics of commodification and belief. This analysis aims to contribute to existing debates on secularization, on neoliberalism's resilience, and on post-truth politics. It shows their interconnectedness through a critical approach that focuses on the disarticulation, rearticulation, and deployment of the categories of the secular/profane and religious/sacred in neoliberal regimes of power and knowledge.

Abstract
This article ethnographically explores the consumption practices and strategies of Sarajevan households, framing them in the economic and socio-cultural dynamics that affected family life following the war and post socialist transformation. Displacement and the collapse of the socialist economic system led to Sarajevans suffering downward socio-economic mobility and widespread mistrust of the world outside. Despite the material issues that could be moral justification for the consumption strategies driven by strict necessity and familism, this article will consider how (humanitarian and interpersonal) donations and credits are used to convey a sort of symbolic reappropriation of the home and to strive to reposition the household's socio-economic status. Ultimately the article takes into account how these consumption strategies reshape social relations within and outside the family in the peculiar conjuncture of post-war neoliberalism

Neoliberalism has been a popular concept within anthropological scholarship over the past decade; this very popularity has also elicited a fair share of criticism. This review examines current anthropological engagements with neoliberalism and explains why the concept has been so attractive for anthropologists since the millennium. It briefly outlines the history of neoliberal thought and explains how neoliberalism is different from late capitalism. Although neoliberalism is a polysemic concept with multiple referents, anthropologists have most commonly understood neoliberalism in two main ways: as a structural force that affects people's life-chances and as an ideology of governance that shapes subjectivities. Neoliberalism frequently functions as an index of the global political-economic order and allows for a vast array of ethnographic sites and topics to be contained within the same frame. However, as an analytical framework, neoliberalism can also obscure ethnographic particularities and foreclose certain avenues of inquiry.

Johanna Bockman unpacks a hefty term, neoliberalism. She cites its roots and its uses, decoding it as a description of a "bootstraps" ideology that trumpets individualism and opportunity but enforces conformity and ignores structural constraints.

This article aims to contribute to the understanding of recent democratization processes in Bolivia and Ecuador, two Andean countries that underwent similar processes of contestation to neoliberalism and implemented different strategies and policies to respond to it. In this article, I will focus on the similarities between the democratic processes of Bolivia and Ecuador in the context of neoliberalism and the divergent post‐neoliberal responses implemented in the last decade.

AbstractIn this essay I argue that the ideology of neoliberalism may have failed, but that neoliberal practice is alive and kicking. Most of the 'solutions' to the crisis are in the spirit of neoliberalism, rather than enraptured by neoliberal spirit. Yet, this neoliberal solution is not a solution; it is part of the problem in the sense that it is leading to more problems — not just today but also in decades to come. This so‐called solution is often presented as Keynesian, but it is only partly so. A better way to classify this solution is as an attempt to save the existing, neoliberal, system. The big crisis of our time did not become a crisis of the hegemony of neoliberalism, because actually existing neoliberalism is flexible enough to influence policy in other ways than through the mantra of free markets: it thrives on presenting existing socioeconomic conditions as failing and neoliberalism as the best solution. Considering the many blows neoliberal ideology has received during this crisis, it should already be dead, but like a creeping cancer neoliberal practice is able to resurface and show up in both new and unexpected, and old and predictable, ways.

Latin American pension reforms during the 1990s dramatically increased the number of people in the region who had a direct stake in the returns on financial capital. This article asks: How, if at all, has this expansion affected Latin American politics? It focuses particularly on popular attitudes towards neoliberalism. It argues that government-induced expansions of capital ownership do not directly affect public preferences about neoliberalism, but did so indirectly by shaping the information that people use to judge whether neoliberalism is welfare enhancing. According to this view, participation in a reformed Latin American pension system should lead to acceptance of neoliberalism when pensions returns are high, but have the opposite effect when returns are low. This study analyzes multiple datasets of Latin American survey data and finds support for this theory.

This article aims to understand the dialectic between the visible and the invisible in relation to the post-hegemonic nature of neoliberalism and the role of mediation in that process. The neoliberal ideological project is geared towards making itself invisible, positioning itself as quintessentially anti-ideological and natural rather than ideological. However, the post-hegemonic status of neoliberalism and capitalism requires its constitutive outsides to struggle for visibility so as to be able to make itself invisible. Mainstream media plays a pivotal role in this regard not only in terms of invisibilizing capitalist interests, but also in terms of providing (negative or positive) visibility to the constitutive outsides of capitalism. Mediation also implicates audiences and publics, who could be approached as an increasingly angry and frustrated Spivakean subaltern, distrustful of democracy and of the media. It is argued that a new democratic imaginary is needed, de-territorialized from the market imaginary and mobilizing the discontented subaltern. The question remains, however, whether it is überhaupt possible to unsettle the post-hegemonic status of the neoliberal ideological project.