Neoliberalism K—UMich 2013 neg 1NCs 1NC: Generic

Globalization’s improvement of technology substantially improves society as a whole

(Tamas, “Globalisation and prospects of the world society,” CENTRAL EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 9, pp 6, http://cepsr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ATT81762.pdf#page=9)//SG

As a matter of fact, globalisation has got more than one, single "face". It has potentially favourable and unfavourable effects alike.It brings about a challenge but also an opportunity. This follows also from the double-edge impact of its main motive forces: (a)The “revolution” in communication and information technologies substantially facilitates the expansion of economic relations between countries, internationalmigrationandtourism, and thenetworkingactivitiesof transnational companiesbuilding up and managing international production systems. It increasesthe tradability of services and also the scope of those services within the TNCs’ network, such as performed by regional headquarters, local marketing and procurement centres, accounting and financial bureaus, or even some R&D centres.Althoughspeaking about the “death of distance” is an obvious exaggeration(even in a strictly geographical sense, not to mention the “economic” and “cultural distance”9),the spread of remote employment opens new opportunities for those developing countries equipping their labour with appropriate skill and apparatus.The easier access to remote resources and markets, the reduction both of time and cost of transports, and the drastic fall in the costs of international as well as intercontinental information flows, etc., undoubtedly bring the various parts of the world closer to each other and promote the cross-border integration of production processes.The new information techniques, such as Internet, satellite and fibre-optic networks of worldwide telecommunication, etc.,make not only the costs decreasing but also the co- ordination even of those knowledge- and skill-intensive functions allocated in remote areas much easier than ever before.They facilitate also the quick responsiveness of the companies concerned and their affiliates or contract-manufacturers within the network, to any change on the demand or the supply side of the market.

Globalization results in massive economic engagements

(Tamas, “Globalisation and prospects of the world society,” CENTRAL EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 9, pg 7, http://cepsr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ATT81762.pdf#page=9)//SG

Good: Democracy

Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand – economic liberty reinforces the independence of actors and their ability to defend their interests in society

Kurki, PhD @ University of Wales, Professor in International Relations Theory @ University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 13 Feb 2013

(Milja, “Politico-Economic Models of Democracy in Democracy Promotion,” International Studies Perspectives, pg 5-6)//SG

A number of authors have argued that capitalism and democracy are comple- mentary and mutually reinforcing in a “necessary” sense. Notably, it is argued that there is something inherent in the nature of capitalism that reinforces the work- ings of democracy and, specifically, liberal democracy. One key argument formany of those who see a necessary connection between capitalism and democracy has been that both democracy and capitalism arise from their shared guiding values. In short, capitalism and democracy have, as social systems, a single and shared value source, which accounts for their compatibility. For John Locke (1960),the shared value linking capitalism and democracy was the natural right to property.People are first and foremost property owners, and it is from their natural right to property that both a right to representative government and a right to free exchange of labor and goods arise from.Adam Smith (1970) also saw liberal economic capitalism as closely connected to repre- sentative government. For him, the connection between them was embedded not just in shared values but in the complementary functions of capitalism and democracy. For Smith, for the liberal market system to work effectively, there was a need for rule of law and representative institutions to guide social life.This relationship was necessary: For markets to function, there had to be some stability of expecta- tion, which is what rule of law and representative government provided. At the same time, economic liberty was seen to reinforce the independence of individual actors and hence their ability to defend their interests in society.Increased inde- pendence and wealth of the populace supports a more confident pluralist society, and crucially, these developments reduce social conflict and encourage the emer- gence of higher values and “civilized” life in societies (Berry 1997). Early nineteenth-century liberals JamesMillandJeremyBenthamalso believed in a necessary connection between capitalism and democracy, but for them, it Another viewpoint thatidentifies capitalist values as crucial to the develop- ment of democratic rights is set out in Friedrich Hayek’s (1960, 1973)and Milton Friedman’s (1962) work. Their analyses, which set the scene for the development of neoliberalism in economics and politics, state an a priori prefer- ence for liberal economic values, but also clearly argue thateconomic liberty is essential for political liberty. Friedman (2002:3) makes this argument powerfully: “By relying primarily on voluntary co-operation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is a check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, or religion and thought”. Quite simply, economic liberty is a “necessary condition for political freedom” (Friedman 2002:4). Friedman, paradoxically, saw the link between economic and political freedoms to be constituted precisely by the fact that capitalist model of economic activity separates the economic from the political: “The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom, namely competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other” (Friedman 2002:9). A variety of arguments then have been made for the necessary connection between democracy and capitalism. Whether through resort to shared values, arguments about human nature, or view of capitalism and democracy as func- tionally mutually supportive, the claim is made that capitalism is a necessary condition for democracy, and vice versa. For many, this has led to further con- clusions: For example, thatif state controls are forced on capitalism, democratic governance is endangered; that when capitalism spreads, democratic governance is made possible; and if capitalism is successful in generating economic growth, pressures toward democracy will appear (Berger, 1986; see Almond 1991:469; McFaul 2004; Mandelbaum 2007; Diamond 2008)

Democracy and free trade are directly related

Seyf, PhD in Agricultural Economics and Management, MA Economics, BA in Business Studies, and Dip Economic Development, 2012, (Ahmad, “Democracy and free market are Incompatible” The Financial Daily 5/10/12 Found on ABI Inform)//JS

There may be some differences between neoliberal advocates of democracy, but there is a common element among them that free market and democracy produce and reproduce one another. To put it differently, democracy promotes free market and free market in turn promotes democracy. Some even go as far as suggesting that without a free market economic system, there could be no democracy. Democracy strengthens free market. If a government is expected to change without violence and revolution, then, there must be a proper system in place to monitor and control and when needs be, combat the abuse of power. At the same time, if politicians could not be removed by non-violent means, what guarantee is there that they would not stay in power for ever, or, would respect private property, or would not impose heavy taxes? If any historical evidence is needed, look at Iran or Egypt. Under this situation, there would be little incentive for investment, and wealth creation and capital accumulation. Market mechanism will be distorted, and as a result there would be little or no development either. On the contrary, when there is democracy, abuse of power will be controlled, and free market system would function effectively and efficiently and the economy develops too.

At the same time, free market would also reinforce democracy and democratic institutions. It would lead to economic development and pave the way for the creation of a class of wealthy individuals who are not dependent on the state and this class would desperately need democracy to ensure that no one would abuse power.

Good: Agency

Critiques of neoliberalism ignore valuable social movements and thinking—dooms progressive politics

Barnett, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University 10 (Clive, “PUBLICS AND MARKETS What’s wrong with Neoliberalism?”, The Handbook of Social Geography, 2010, http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/emergentpublics/publications/barnett_publicsandmarkets.pdf)//AS

What’s really wrong with neoliberalism, for critics who have constructed it as a coherent object of analysis, is the unleashing of destructive pathologies through the combined withdrawal of the state and the unfettered growth of market exchange. ‘Individual freedom’ is presented as a medium of uninhibited hedonism, which if given too much free reign undermines the ascetic virtues of self-denial upon which struggles for ‘social justice’ are supposed to depend. Underwritten by simplistic moral denunciations of ‘the market’, these theories cover over a series of analytic, explanatory, and normative questions. In the case of both the Marxist narrative of neoliberalization, and the Foucauldian analysis of neoliberal governmentality, it remains unclear whether either tradition can provide adequate resources for thinking about the practical problems of democracy, rights and social justice. This is not helped by the systematic denigration in both lines of thought of ‘liberalism’, a catch-all term used with little discrimination. There is a tendency to present neoliberalism as the natural end-point or rolling-out of a longer tradition ofliberal thought – an argument only sustainable through the implicit invocation of some notion of a liberal ‘episteme’ covering all varieties and providing a core of meaning. One of the lessons drawn by diverse strands of radical political theory from the experience of twentieth-century history is that struggles for social justice can create new forms of domination and inequality. It is this that leads to a grudging appreciation of liberalism as a potential source for insight into the politics of pluralistic associational life. The cost of the careless disregard for ‘actually existing liberalisms’ is to remain blind to the diverse strands of egalitarian thought about the relationships between democracy, rights and social justice that one finds in, for example: post-Rawslian political philosophy; post-Habermasian theories of democracy, including their feminist variants; various postcolonial liberalisms; the flowering of agonistic liberalisms and theories of radical democracy; and the revival of republican theories of democracy, freedom, and justice. No doubt theorists of neoliberalism would see all this as hopelessly trapped within the ‘neoliberal frame’ of individualism, although if one takes this argument to its logical conclusion, even Marx’s critique of capitalist exploitation, dependent as it is on an ideal of selfownership, is nothing more than a variation on Lockean individual rights.

Neoliberalism is flexible and accommodating to gender and class struggles—they can coexist

Newman, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Social Science, The Open University Visiting Professor, Social Policy, University of Bath 13-- (Janet, “Spaces of power: feminism, neoliberalism and gendered

Labour”, Social Politics 20:2, Summer 2013, http://oro.open.ac.uk/36727/2/22228FF7.pdf)//AS

Feminism, I want to suggest, was the source of emergent forms of politics and practice which in turn opened up what I term ‘prefigurative pathways’. Some such pathways were articulated into would-be hegemonic forms of rule to become a new ‘dominant’ formation. But in the process neoliberalism itself had to adapt and flex to take account of particular strands of feminism: its claims and demands, and the cultural and politics shifts it had generated. And, as Clarke and Newman (1997), Gilroy (1992, 2004), Hall et al (1978), Weeks (2009), and others show, neoliberalism also encountered other antagonisms generated through the politics of race, class, colonialism, and LGBT struggles, each of which were not containable within the confines of an exclusively British reading of history, nor support narratives of the wholesale erasure of struggle and dissent. Such struggles were often configured with traces of ‘residual’ formations that continued as effective forces into the present in ways that disrupt readings of ‘epochal’ change. his form of analysis problematises concepts of ‘after’ and ‘post’ neoliberalism referred to in the Introduction. But the argument I want to develop here is rather different. I want to propose that new orderings of the ‘dominant’ were most likely to emerge in conditions where counter projects and movements formed a ‘perverse alignment’ with neo-liberal logics. This concept is inspired by the work of the Brazilian scholar EvelinaDagnino who traced a ‘perverse confluence’ between the popular participatory project (represented in the success of struggles against the military dictatorship in Brazil) and the neo-liberal conception of a minimal state. The perversity is located in the fact that despite ‘pointing in opposite and even antagonistic directions, both projects require an active, proactive civil society’ (Dagnino, 2007: 335: see also Newman and Clarke, 2009: 139). This offers a different, but sympathetic, reading of the ‘elective affinities’ between feminism and neoliberalism referred to by Fraser. I want to use it here to suggest the significance of the different ‘perversities’ generated in the multiple spaces of power traced in the previous section.

Good: Mexico

Economic liberalization and privatization streamlined the Mexican economy, improved coexistence among citizens, and improved society

Gates, Ph.D in Anthropology @ University of British Colombia, Professor of Anthropology at Simon Fraser University, 1996

(Marilyn, “The Debt Crisis and Economic Restructuring:Prospects for Mexican Agriculture,,” NEOLIBERALISM REVISITED – Economic Restructuring and Mexico's Political Future, edited by Gerardo Otero, Westview Press, pg 48-49)//SG

Differences in presidential style did, however, become apparent.Whereas the trademark of the de la Madrid administration was caution, bold and rapid reform became the dominant motif under Salinas. De la Madrid talked exten- sively about moral renovation, butSalinas engaged in a tough and comprehen- sive anticorruption campaignthat resulted in the apprehension of the notorious leaders of two of Mexico's strongest unions, a drug czar, a top fi- nancier, and other significant public figures, often political allies. De la Madrid held state agencies to austerity budgets;Salinas trimmed the government fat to the bone in many sectors, introduced significant government decentraliza- tion, streamlined economic procedures via extensive deregulation and tax re- form, and initiated a widespread privatizationdrive resulting in the sale or closure of over 800 public enterprises, even finding buyers for some of the most inefficient ones such as Aeroméxico and Teléfonos de Mexico (Teichman, Chapter 8, this volume).6 Themost dramatic changesunder President Salinaswere in the economic sphere, particularlywith respect to rapid and comprehensive measures to con- tinue the economic openingvia relaxationin the foreign investment lawand tariff reduction. These reforms were integrated within an overall program of . national economic and political modernizationexplicitly designed to "strengthen [Mexico] in the global context and improve coexistence among Mexicans . . . to create a viable economy in a strongly competitive international environment and thus to generate employment and opportunities for all . . . to forge a more just, more generous, more valuable society for each one of us, more respected in the world" (Salinas de Gortari, 1990:1, my translation). In the political do- main, Salinas envisioned "democracy consubstantial with the economic mod- ernization of our country . . . a public service that serves rather than being served by power . . . a new political culture" (Salinas de Gortari, 1990:1, my translation).Another high-profile areaduring the early part of the Salinas administrationwas the further renegotiation of the foreign debtunder the widely publicized Brady Plan. This agreement, reached in March 1990, cut Mexico's debt service Payments by $4 billion a year. Although less than was anticipated originally,it was sufficient to boost private-sector and foreign investor confidence in the economy and bring interest rates down to their lowest level since 1981. Most important, the savings appeared to give Salinas the impetus to devote attention to Mexico's chronic social problemsand to devise specific initiatives to promote the recapitalization of agriculture, the Achilles heel of the Mexican economy. The efforts of President Salinas to promote economic dynamism in agricul- ture were directed initially to attempt to eradicate the corruption fostered by the "industry of disasters" and improve the efficiency of the agricultural devel- opment agencies. Late in 1989, it was announced that BANRURAL, the rural credit bank for ejidos, would cease to employ field inspectors who had been in a prime position to initiate insurance and other frauds. At the same time, the agricultural insurance agency ANAGSA was abolished, having become notori- ous for corrupt practices as blatant as collecting indemnification for phantom crops. This agency was replaced in June 1990 by a new insurance company, AGROASEMEX,a parastatal affiliate of the Aseguradora Mexicana, which was to operate with only one-third the personnel employed by ANAGSA and without field inspectors. So far, this cleanup campaign has uncovered hundreds of major frauds at all levels, including among ejidal officers. However, petty swin- dles appear to have increased in the latest phase of the debt crisis, largely in re- sponse to massive decline in real wages to less than half of 1982 levels. With average salaries of less than $300 a month, agrarian bureaucrats often feel com- pelled, at the very least, to cheat on their gasoline allowances, to extort boxes of produce from the ejidatarios, and to rob their employers of time by padding their work sheets.

Good: LGBT

Capitalism essential to LGBT rights movements

Githens, Assistant Professor Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville 09 (Rod P, “CAPITALISM, IDENTITY POLITICS, AND QUEERNESS CONVERGE: LGBT EMPLOYEE RESOURCE GROUPS”, New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 23:3, Summer 2009, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS

Within HRD, many voices have called for broadening the scope of the field to include societal issues and the development of more humane and ethical workplaces (e.g., Bierema&Cseh, 2003; Bierema&D'Abundo, 2003; Fenwick, 2005; Hatcher, 2006; O'Donnell, 2007). ERGs provide one such location for this type of development. However, ERGs balance their activist agendas with the need to contribute to the organization. Corporate motivation for supporting these efforts is not necessarily altruistic and is often enabled by the capitalistic goal of improving organizational effectiveness (Gedro, 2007). Influenced by approaches that focus both on LGBT-specific identities and broader conceptions of sexuality, known as queer theory, these employee groups have continued the long tradition of advancing LGBT issues through capitalism. Through a conceptual and historical discussion, I argue that these groups resulted from the unique convergence of capitalism and two sometimes-opposing social organizing strategies: queer politics and identity politics. Although these groups exist in various forms and in multiple types of organizations, I focus on formally-recognized ERGs within for-profit corporations (for a discussion of other types of groups, see Githens& Aragon, 2007). This article’s purpose is to explore the ways in which the productive tensions between capitalism, identity politics, and queerness have manifested themselves in LGBT ERGs and created structures and activities that result in development for individuals, organizations, and societies.

Capitalism provides the vehicle for LGBT acceptance and identity

Githens, Assistant Professor Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville 09 (Rod P, “CAPITALISM, IDENTITY POLITICS, AND QUEERNESS CONVERGE: LGBT EMPLOYEE RESOURCE GROUPS”, New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 23:3, Summer 2009, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS

In modern Western culture, before the creation of the concept of homosexuality in the 19th century, people who had sex with others of the same gender were merely engaging in sinful behavior (D'Emilio& Freedman, 1997). With the creation of homosexuality as anew pathologicalcondition to label those individuals, they were no longer merely regular people engaging in sinful acts, they were a distinct group of people. Shortly thereafter, the formation of formal and informal groups based on this sexual identity was a subversive effort to exert power and shift a negative attribute into a powerful collective force by taking advantage of this pathological identity (D'Emilio& Freedman, 1997; Foucault, 1978). As I explain later, the evolution of capitalism has provided the structures through which this unique identity has emerged (D'Emilio, 1993). These forces have resulted in numerous advances in the acceptance of LGBT individuals in society. However, some have argued that LGBT identity politics has reached its limits and that LGBT individuals should argue for individual liberties rather than equality as a minority group (e.g., Yoshino, 2006). Others advocate queer and universalizing approaches (rather than identity-based approaches) in which sexuality is seen as fluid and existing on a continuum (Sedgwick, 1990). They argue that such approaches are more appropriate because of the opportunity for opening productive discussions by examining the normalization of heterosexuality. Broader queer approaches have the potential to open up conversations and include a wider range of individuals. However, the adoption of more complex queer approaches has implications for how sexuality is addressed in workplace settings. Instead of seeking to create an understanding of and recognition of LGBT persons, queer approaches by 20 employee activists would seek to complicate sexuality and gender by dealing with the multifaceted approaches to “performing” gender and sexuality. I also consider the warnings of those who contend that radical deconstruction in queer theory leads to a loss of grounding that can result in immobilization due to the rejection of sexual identity as a meaningful category (e.g., Green, 2002). I explore the practical ramifications of taking such an approach and the problems surrounding the normalization of queerness by corporations.

Capitalism allows freedom of identity and rights advancements for the LGBT community

Githens, Assistant Professor Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville 09 (Rod P, “CAPITALISM, IDENTITY POLITICS, AND QUEERNESS CONVERGE: LGBT EMPLOYEE RESOURCE GROUPS”, New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 23:3, Summer 2009, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS

D’Emilio(1993) argues that the rise in gay and lesbian identity in the U.S. is a direct result of the structures created by capitalism. He explains that homosexual acts and tendencies have occurred throughout history; however, the idea of being gay or homosexual is a relatively new phenomenon (also see Foucault, 1978). D’Emilio concludes that the emergence of such identities was a slow process that started in the colonial era when capitalism began replacing the widespread system of individual household production. Over decades, the number of selfsufficient households declined. These households had relied on the nuclear family (i.e., husband, wife, children) for production, but became part of a system of wage labor that deemphasized self-sufficiency. With household production, individuals needed to move into heterosexual relationships because of the central role that procreation played in living a sustainable life. Capitalism, on the other hand, allowed for selling one’s labor and purchasing goods that were produced outside of the family. This shift resulted in a steady, gradual decline in household production and a decline in the importance of procreative relationships in maintaining a decent life (as evidenced by declining birthrates). As a result, individuals with same-sex attractions were no longer compelled to enter opposite-sex relationships. Over the span of decades, people with same-sex attractions slowly started entering same-sex relationships and developing social networks that included others who also had same-sex attractions. D’Emilio (1993) explains that this gradual change and the slow emergence of gay identities culminated in World War II, which resulted in the explosion of gay identity formation. The war took thousands of men and women from around the country and placed them into samesex environments, in addition to placing those who already identified as gay into those environments. Same-sex sexual relations occurred throughout the war, and many gays and lesbians remained in large cities after the war ended, which resulted in the formation of urban 21 communities based on sexuality. Later, the Stonewall riots occurred (in 1969), which is seen as the formal beginning of the gay and lesbian liberation movement. D’Emilio explains that the structures of capitalism (e.g., movement to cities that resulted from the decline in self-sufficient households) allowed the gay and lesbian movement to form a grassroots network that was activated after the events in 1969. In the last 30 years, this network was responsible for the pressuring of corporate leaders that resulted in astounding success in changing workplace policies. Most post-World War II capitalists did not embrace gays and lesbians. In fact, there is a well-documented history of oppression by employers, especially during and after the McCarthy era (D'Emilio& Freedman, 1997). After Stonewall, activists began targeting prominent companies like AT&T, who were openly discriminatory in their hiring practices toward gays and lesbians (Raeburn, 2004a). The first LGBT ERG formed in 1978 (Raeburn, 2004a); however, it took years of work on the part of activists before most companies started adopting nondiscriminatory policies. Interestingly, corporations have been more progressive in their practices toward LGBT individuals than governmental agencies (for a discussion of federal government employment practices during the Clinton administration, see Hirsch, 2000). Many companies adopted LGBT-friendly policies before state and local nondiscrimination laws were changed to include sexual orientation.3 Most companies do not adopt these policies for purely altruistic reasons. One reason for adopting inclusive policies is to capture a larger share of what is perceived as a lucrative LGBT consumer market.4 By adopting these LGBT-friendly policies, companies often alienate other customers, particularly religious fundamentalists (for an excellent discussion of the complicated history of LGBT relations at Disney, see Truesdell, 2001). Many companies are willing to confront this risk. However, I argue that one of the most important reasons companies have adopted these policies is due to pressure by employee activists and to keep LGBT employees happy. It is important to examine the conditions that created an environment where employers sought to ensure the satisfaction of LGBT workers, while risking the loss of customers. As capitalism created the structures for the creation of gay and lesbian identities, newer forms of capitalism have also created conditions in which a substantial portion of an individual’s identity is wrapped up in work (Ciulla, 2000). In the 1950s, workplaces sought to improve productivity through enhancing human relations at work and implementing paternalistic employment practices (e.g., comprehensive pension programs, career-long employment). In the current era, these paternalistic practices have been replaced by new approaches that are designed to increase worker productivity through helping employees create meaning through their jobs (Ciulla, 2000). Today, individual identity is intertwined with work, especially for many white-collar workers. As a result of this shift, work is no longer a place individuals go to sell their labor; instead, individuals go to work to seek meaning in their lives. With this identification of the workplace as a center of personal identity, it has become essential that employers keep their workers happy inorder for workers to have meaningful careers (which leads to maximizing productivity). For a few decades, workers and employers assumed that most people would spend an entire career with one organization. Currently, most jobs are not secure and workers expect to have free choice in employment—moving from job-to-job in order to find the most meaningful and wellpaying position. Workers are no longer consumers only after work hours when shopping for goods and services. They are now consumers at work. Especially during strong economic times, workers expect to find an ideal job and they are not afraid to leave an employer to seek a better deal elsewhere. With the replacement of defined-benefit pension plans by 401(k) plans, workers have little incentive to remain with an employer if they are not satisfied. Those who advocate free choice and autonomy celebrate this consumer mentality in employment. Later, I will return to a discussion of the dangers of this consumer mentality. On the upside, this consumerism in employment has allowed LGBT employee activists to encourage change in workplaces.In contrast, politicians and government administrators have not been as eager to adopt these suggested changes (neither in government employment practices nor in employment laws).

Directory: rest -> wikis -> openev -> spaces -> 2013 -> pages -> Michigan7 -> attachments

Download 1.47 Mb.

Share with your friends: