Jason Paul Grant

Our free market economy

It could be argued that society does not exist today, even with millions of people living in Britain the social connections that used to be common place have eroded. It is all too easy to blame immigration but the threat is from the continuation of the neo-liberal agenda that allows the global flow of economy, services and people. Life has been reduced to people looking out for themselves primarily; society is now full of individuals who decide the direction of their lives.

Being able to choose is apparently a welcomed freedom but all of our choices are based upon the market allowing those options to be available. Liberal democracy that demanded participation from all citizens has been replaced by a new political rationality, to stifle public debate which leads to the decline in political participation. Individuals now are forced to work, in order to consume more products and services which use up our time leaving community activities a thing of the past. The free market is reigning and this essay will look into the impacts that it is having in Britain.

http://www.montpelerin.org/images/headers/header1.jpg

The concept of neo-liberalism has been attributed to the Mont Pelerin Society. Their website, states that “in 1947, a group of economists, historians and philosophers were invited to Switzerland, by Professor Hayek, to discuss liberalism in regards to its state after World War II”. These individuals built the foundations for neo-liberalism, which mobilised progressive nations to protect the interests of particular members. Monbiot commented in the Guardian, August 2007, regarded that the recent credit crisis should be linked to that meeting in 1947. He describes neo-liberalism as “maximum market freedom and minimum intervention by the state”. Neo-liberalism is a philosophy in which the existence and operation of market values replaces any previous relationship with the production of goods and services. No justification is made in relation to the effects that those values have on services and the market is considered an ethic in itself. The market is viewed as acting like a guide for all human actions whilst displacing all existing ethical beliefs that went before. The key features of neo-liberalism allow the rule of the market by reducing public expenditure, through de-regulation and privatisation, which creates individual responsibility.

Brown views neo-liberalism as “a form of governmentality that reaches every citizen, through the extension and dissemination of market values into all institutions and social actions”. The neo-liberalism agenda has permeated the fabric of everyday life through reforming the public services towards more business modes of practice. Every person who use to rely on services such as health care, education, transport, welfare, social housing and elderly care have experienced drastic changes in the operation of those services. The World Bank has been seen as a prime endorser of neo-liberalism and the market agenda. Levidow depicts how “the World Bank promotes the global reform agenda through privatisation, deregulation and marketization”. The World Bank advocates the need for market controls on all services, rather than public or government regulation. Neo-liberalism can be viewed as an innovative way of developing economic models that enable society to enjoy its activities independently from the control of the state. Barry et al, discuss how neo-liberalism is a response to the uncontrollable systems of social welfare that many governments have allowed countries to fall into. They argue “this governmental apparatus has become an economically and socially costly obstacle to the economic performance on which it depends”. Neo-liberalism is currently being viewed as the only alternative to the dependence mentality of welfare states. As many social services need to be supported through taxes, by allowing the market to control services; standards get raised through competition and failing services can be eliminated. The market can also rout out those services that are no longer in demand, thus saving wasted money.

http://www.fortunewatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/world-bank.jpg

Many governments around the world are implementing the World Bank strategy of reducing everything into economic logic. The first noticeable implementation came under the Thatcher regime which was then carried through into the Blair administration. The Conservative government that came to power in 1979 has been viewed as the party who destroyed the manufacturing industries and replaced them with service driven initiatives. Two examples were the closures of coal mine and printing production being taken from ordinary people’s hands and outsourced to save money. Even the great strikes and demonstrations were not enough to prevent the closures of those industries.  Steinberg and Johnson describe “the Thatcherite ethos was captured in a brutalist, neo-Darwinian discourse of competitive individualism and entrepreneurialism. The new underclass was exhorted to stop whinging, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to start their own businesses or to absorb the service work former provided by the state”. Thatcherism reigned for 18 years and managed to alter the social, economic and political terrain in British society. Socially, communities that once thrived and developed through manufacturing industries, where generations went to work down the mines, factories or construction plants had their lively hoods taken away. Whole communities were left without any direction and had to leave their villages and towns in pursuit of work in the cities. The economy was booming for the people that worked in the new service industries but for the majority of people, money was extremely tight. The policy of allowing everyone the right to buy their council house brought many families to bankruptcy and destitution, as people could no longer afford their mortgages whilst the banks continued to make their profits. Politically, the unions that operated within these manufacturing industries were not able to fight against this enormous global agenda and thus were defeated. This process disenfranchised groups of people and made people look out for number one, the start of individualisation. The most disturbing aspect of the formation of market economics replacing social structures was the fact that it would not be changed for the near future. All of the huge public disdain for the Thatcher regime seems to have been replaced by her predecessor as Britain has be forced to compete on the global international level.

http://bucf.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/513-new-labour-800.jpg

In 1997, Blair’s New Labour government rocketed to power sweeping aside the Thatcher years with vengeance. The British public needed a viable alternative to the neo-liberal ethics that was crippling most of the country. Voters thought that Labour were about to bring back the welfare state social democracy or the old style nationalism but few took into account the global move away from those ideologies. Hall discusses “we may have underestimated the degree to which all this was itself related to much deeper global shifts – the post-industrial society, the struggle by capital to restore its right to manage, the globalisation of the international economy, the technological revolution, the rise of a new individualism and the hegemony of neo-liberal free-market values”. The way in which New Labour justified its direction was subtle, the title of the party suggested a new direction and behind the scenes the third way project was taking place. Fundamentally, the old ideas of left and right were being made redundant, and a continuation of the neo-liberal global agenda was the current order. Public service continued to be faced with reforms that rationalised cuts and new management structures with little regard to how the users were being affected. Public transport was privatised to the highest bidders, the national energy companies were sectioned off, public health care started to become undermined by private care, the unemployed were driven into becoming job seekers, even though most of their former jobs had been taken away.

The governments’ education policy on higher institutions has been placed within a limited economic view which essentially places institutions into market logic for all of its affairs. In particular the HE sector is being urged to “modernise, adapt, diversify, marketize, and become entrepreneurial, competitive, efficient and more effective”. There is also a need for new forms of governance, management, and new administrative systems that allow businesses to fund failing schools to provide alternatives to state funded education provision. There has been a strong movement by the government to introduce city academies in underperforming areas around the country. Gordon Brown, prime minister wrote in the observer in February 2008 “400 planned academies in disadvantaged areas (will provide) not just exclusive opportunities just for the few, but a new means of advancing opportunity for all”.

So with the full support of the government, the neo-liberal agenda can continue to provide almost valid alternatives for educational provision. There are many critics of this new direction within education policy. Most notably Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and Colleges Union describes the current situation. “This is not education policy. This is a catalogue of misaligned objectives each with unintended but entirely predictable consequences. The reality of government policy for too many UCU members is job insecurity, increased casual employment and higher workloads.”

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/2680050314003.png

So neo-liberalism can have some detrimental consequences for society, especially in relation to learning. One could argue that buy allowing everyone to become more business minded, the economy will continue to provide wealth and prosperity for all. The fundamental flaw with that particular argument is that within business, a few people benefit whilst the majority contribute to the few. Neo-liberalism has become embedded within the framework of our society and the need for individuals to relate to the market seems to be the only viable option left available. The current political institutions and legislation actively endorse neo-liberalism while dismissing any other alternatives. By becoming more individualised consumers, we are only really concerned with what we can get out of any situation. Moreover, if people fail within the system, then the blame is firmly placed upon their own ability to compete. Neo-liberalism has defiantly become the dominating ideology and the need for people to create an alternative that is not reactionary, but allows the pacifists to understand that change is needed is of the most urgent importance if we are ever going to achieve any hope for all of humanity.