Neoliberalism K—UMich 2013 neg 1NCs 1NC: Generic
Download 1.47 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Their evidence is flawed – market liberalization reforms only results in hyperinflation, stagnation, and increased debts
- I: Revolutions
I: MexicoNeoliberal policies hurt Mexican workers, labor mobility, and economy—precludes aff solvencyOtero, Professor of Sociology at Simon Fraser University 11 (Gerardo, “Neoliberal Globalization, NAFTA, and Migration: Mexico's Loss of Food and Labor Sovereignty”, Journal of Poverty 15:4, 2011, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS This article explores the way in which the U.S. economy has faced the crisis of the Fordist stage of capitalism since the 1970s by focusing on a cheap-labor strategy to restore profitability. By endorsing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), U.S. officials ensured access to an abundant supply of labor south of the border. For their part, Mexico's political technocrats placed their bet for economic growth on the comparative advantage of cheap labor. This has been a losing bet for the workers of both countries: Neoliberalism and Mexico's integration into the North American economy—without free labor mobility—have had a detrimental impact, particularly on Mexico. The counterpart of its loss of food self-sufficiency by growing dependency on U.S.-grains imports has been the loss of labor sovereignty. Defined as the ability of a nation to generate employment with livable wages for the vast majority of the population, labor sovereignty has been a casualty of Mexico's economic integration with its northern neighbors. The most visible result of this loss has been substantially increased out-migration rates, with vast numbers of displaced Mexican workers flowing into the United States in search for work, most often unauthorized or undocumented. More specifically, this article explores the relation between food self-sufficiency and labor sovereignty in the midst of Mexico's integration to its northern neighbors, especially to the U.S. economy. It compares and contrasts food self-sufficiency in the three NAFTA countries around production for the domestic market, per-capita calorie consumption, and overall food trade. The main proposition is that food-self-sufficiency is a condition for a country to enjoy labor sovereignty, as defined above. Of the three NAFTA nations, Mexico is the least self-sufficient, and hence the one that expels the largest rate of migrants. Although Mexico's exports of fruits and vegetables to the United States and Canada increased substantially since the late 1980s, this sector did not generate nearly enough employment to absorb bankrupted peasants. Therefore, Mexico has become dependent on the importation of basic-subsistence grains, which used to be produced by smallholder peasant farmers. Many peasants became redundant in the Mexican economy, and their only way out, literally, has been to migrate to the United States or Canada. Although most migrants to Canada (a small minority) enter that country as part of state-sponsored guest worker programs (Otero & Preibisch, 2010), the vast majority of migrants to the United States do so as undocumented or unauthorized workers. The presence of large masses of low-skill workers in the United States, authorized or not, raises huge issues of labor rights, discrimination, and exclusion. It has been documented that there is an inverse relation between numbers and rights (Ruhs & Martin, 2008): the more migrant workers there are in rich countries, the fewer their rights are, and vice versa. The fact is that employer demand for workers is “negatively sloped” with respect to labor costs, which means that more rights for migrants typically means higher costs. In North America, the United States tends to have much higher “numbers” than rights, whereas Canada tries to fit the Scandinavian model of fewer numbers and more rights. But numbers of guest workers in Canada have started to outpace the numbers of immigrants as permanent residents or citizens as of 2006, which raises the question whether both of NAFTA's rich countries are converging toward the numbers side of the equation to the detriment of workers' rights. One question about the numbers-rights tradeoff is what can human and labor rights policy makers and activists envision in addressing it? As is seen below, answers to this question will depend on the perspective one takes in migration debates. Although this article briefly addresses this concern, its main goal is to address the root causes of Mexico's out-migration: its growing food dependency and its consequent loss of labor sovereignty. Consistent with this focus, the main structural solutions to workers' rights would lie in fixing Mexico's agrarian structure. Yet, though this issue is not addressed, those concerned with human and labor rights will have to address its effects on migrants in the United States. Their evidence is flawed – market liberalization reforms only results in hyperinflation, stagnation, and increased debtsGates, 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 47)//SG The pace of economic liberalization via deregulation, tax reform, and priva- tization, gradual at first, accelerated after 1986 when Mexico entered the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (GATT). However, these major re- structuring initiatives had little immediate effect in terms of the promotion of economic recovery. Inflation rose to 160 percentby the end of 1987, the econ- omy overall continued to stagnatedespite diversification efforts, and the inter- nal debt burgeoned to 15 percentof gross domestic product (GDP) (IMP Survey, 10 July 1989) even though extensiveefforts were made to cut govern- ment costs, for example through the sale of inefficient state enterprises.In response to these worsening conditions, the de la Madrid administrationintroduced a comprehensive antiinflationary program in December 1987 based on a pact among the government, organized labor, the formal peasant organi- zations, and private business sectors, the Pacto de Solidaridad Económica (PSE, the Pact for Economic Solidarity). This program of wage and price controls succeeded in reducing inflation to 52 percent by the end of 1988. Nevertheless, economic activity remained weak, as real GDP grew by only 1.1 percent in1988 despite increased privatesector investment activity, and consumption rose by less than 1 percent in real terms(IMP Survey, 10 July 1989). Neoliberal policies in Mexico resulted in the privatization of lands depriving citizens of the constitutional guarantee to receive landKim, Politics & History student and the University of Alberta in Alberta, 2012 (Dongwoo, “Modernization or Betrayal: Neoliberalism in Mexico,” Constellations, Volume 4.1 2012, pg 227)//SG In February 1992, Carlos Salinas took an even bolder step with his neoliberal economic policy and amended Article 27 to effectively privatize the lands. Under the amendments, Mexicans were deprived of the constitutional guarantee of receiving land from the government; the government lost the authority to expropriate and distribute lands; and the farmers were allowed to purchase, sell, or rent out their properties on the market.44 Wesley Smith, writing for a conservative policy periodical, praised the implementation of this land reform as a policy that would effectively improve “Mexico’s antiquated agricultural sector” and prepare the local economy for the implementation of NAFTA.45The Salinas administration defended this policy on the grounds that this would dramatically improve the productivity of the countryside, which did not fare well in comparison to the industrial sector, and also to attract foreign investments.46 Rosaria Angela Pisa argues that thenew land reforms were used by the PRI regime to gain a tighter control of the countryside, especially before the 1994 General Elections, which paralleled the idea of the democratic façade that it had been perpetuating throughout the twentieth century.47 In all fairness,the productivity eventually increased in these lands and the former ejido reform was not doing enough for Mexican farmers—but many felt uneasy about this transition.Benito, a farmer, echoed this general feeling when he angrily said that his neighbor “shouldn’t be selling his land, even if it is now the law.”48The trope of neoliberalism as the ultimate betrayal becomes clearer with the rhetoric of imperialism. Many Mexicans and foreign observers displayed concerns about the possible unbalance of economic benefits between the United States and Mexico. The NAFTA negotiation was in a way described as selling out of Mexico to the foreigners. Ramón, a farmer from Mexquitic, associated the PRI presidents with “Spaniards,” drawing “a multivocal symbol of capitalism, greed, and foreignness,” the characteristics that symbolized the United States.49 As such, the neoliberal policies were then associated with the Salinas government and the American imperialists.
Neoliberal policies are perceived as the state’s betrayal of the government – triggers revolutionsKim, Politics & History student and the University of Alberta in Alberta, 2012 (Dongwoo, “Modernization or Betrayal: Neoliberalism in Mexico,” Constellations, Volume 4.1 2012, pg 221)//SG The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN)launched an insurrection on the very date in which the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect—January 1st, 1994. Clearly,it was a powerful act of protest and denouncement against the series of neoliberal economic policies, which culminated with the successful negotiation of NAFTA, undertaken by the administration of Carlos Salinas. However,the Neo-Zapatistas, who claimed to speak on behalf of other disempowered Mexican pueblo, denounced more than the neoliberal reforms themselves;they attacked the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional or PRI), which had been in power for more than six decades since 1929,for being traitors to the Mexican pueblo. Indeed, many Mexicans, especially those in the marginalized sectors of the economy, sympathized with the EZLN in this regard.Neoliberalism, introduced mainly by NAFTA, challenged the values formed during the Mexican Revolution, which had become key elements of the Mexican nationalism. These values were enshrined in the Constitution of 1917 andwhen the Salinas government introduced neoliberal reforms, the Mexican pueblo regarded its actions as an effective betrayal and denial of the promises of the Mexican Revolution. Furthermore, this perception of “betrayal” undermined the political and social legitimacy of the PRI government, which had appropriated the images of the Revolution to legitimize its dictatorial rule. In order to make the case that the introduction of neoliberalism was a betrayal of the promises of the Constitution of 1917, I first lay out the historical context that led to the introduction of neoliberalism into Mexico and its discursive construction by the PRI regime. Then, I demonstrate how these neoliberal reforms were considered traitorous to the marginalized people and contrasted from the visions of the PRI government. Download 1.47 Mb. Share with your friends:
|