Search

This intervention responds to a series of articles—including one published in Antipode—on what is referred to as "new" state capitalism (NSC) or sometimes, simply, state capitalism. Our overarching argument is that by eliding state and institutionalist theory and, specifically, separating the analysis of state transformation from the power and leverage of social forces under late capitalism, NSC scholars end up offering an inaccurate, inchoate and incoherent conceptualisation and analysis of important phenomena. Our contention is that future work needs to return to socio‐relational analyses of the state, prioritising the power and leverage of social forces operating under patterns of accumulation characterised by more‐integrated‐than‐ever‐before global economic‐market relations and the concentration of productive and financial capital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we argue against influential analyses of neoliberalism that prioritize variegation and the role of ideas as key theoretical foci relevant to understanding neoliberalism's diffusion into myriad national and political settings. Rather, we contend that crucial to understanding neoliberalism is the role of politically-produced convergence around market rationality that reflects two core processes: the reorganization of production and the ascendency of financialization. We present a theorization and analysis of neoliberalism's political production and diffusion over time, explaining its contested evolution and impact across diverse settings (both 'North' and 'South') and emphasizing its ever-intensifying symbiotic relationship with the consolidating world market in which the former has increasingly come to serve as the latter's operating system (OS). Further, we posit that neoliberalism's form, function and impact demand analytically prioritizing the leverage of constellations of ideological and material interests within the contradictory context of consolidating relations of production and financialization. Our analysis thus challenges many previous expositions of neoliberalism for their failure to locate neoliberalism's manifestation as arising out of social conflict within particular junctures that privilege certain social forces and ideas over others. We also distinguish our position by highlighting how manifestations of neoliberalism in various settings have combined to yield a greater world market in which variegation has gradually given way to ever-intensifying disciplinary pressures towards market-policy conformity (mono-policy). While current populist movements may well turn out to be important counter movements to neoliberal hegemony, especially if they can internationalize, the disciplining effect of the world market renders many nationally-oriented policy alternatives costly and politically fraught. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three phases are discernible: - (i) the Washington consensus, (ii) the post-Washington consensus (PWC), and (iii) what we call "deep marketization."[1] These shifts in market-oriented development policy have come about in response to ideational developments (such as those emanating from new institutional and behavioural economics) as well as political contestation over policy form and impact. While these dramatic events perhaps lend themselves to neglecting the manner in which marketizing processes have been extended over time in much of the developed world, the dramatic imposition of austerity reflects the way in which, subsequent to the reorganization of production and grand contradictory moments, I market-oriented development policy has flowed from the global north to the global south and back again. i The result of this geographically-dispersed diffusion has been a more global world market than ever before, with all the disciplinary market characteristics that this entails. These policy trends and the ways in which policy is transferred signal the dissolution of the divisions that previously separated mainstream neoliberal I development i policy, practised increasingly in developing countries, from the macro-economic policy sets typical of "mixed" socio-political systems practiced in developed industrialized countries. Subthemes related to this include market-oriented "policy learning" and policy diffusion, resistance to and contestation over market reform, and the promotion of "resilience" and forms of risk (as normative demands of market reformers). [Extracted from the article]

This article explores attempts to construct 'regulatory capacity' in developing countries, focusing on the work of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its role as an international standardsetting institution in regulatory governance. The article explores how the construction of specific forms of regulatory capacity, and attempts to orchestrate the adoption of regulatory reform agendas in emerging economies, reflect broader processes of political-policy transfer that impact state capacity and the ability of developing states to manage economic development. By analysing the OECD's engagement practices with third party organizations such as APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization) and ASEAN(theAssociation of SoutheastAsian Nations) and its specific engagement with emerging economies through country 'reviews' and 'audits', the author explores the implications for state capacity in terms of the adoption of regulatory systems of governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multilateral development agencies have increasingly focused attention on underdeveloped countries in Asia as potential new sites for financial capital. Often referred to as “emerging markets”, these economies are seen as ripe for private sector investment and, at the same time, in need of foreign capital to support rapid industrialisation, modernisation and poverty reduction. For development agencies, this confluence of interests suggests a means for quickly closing the “development gap”, primarily through mobilising techno-managerial modalities designed to reduce barriers to capital entry and other institutional inefficiencies seen as inimical to investment. Thus development agencies now encourage the construction of “enabling environments” to support “market driven development” through processes of “financialisation”. Development, in this sense, is no longer state-led or state-centred, but rather financially driven and privately procured. As we highlight in this special issue, however, financialised modes of development are highly contested and problematic. Indeed, the diffusion into the underdeveloped world of essentially developed world financialisation agendas that seek to instil a broad-based market rationalism that downloads new costs and risks to populations is of significant concern. This Introduction sets in context and introduces a much needed set of articles that bring clarity to financialisation in developing Asia and its implications for development as a process of substantively improving material conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]