IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mil/wpdepa/2010-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contesting neoliberalism: public sector alternatives for service delivery

Author

Listed:
  • Ben FINE

    ()

  • David HALL

    ()

Abstract

The crisis that erupted at the end of 2008 has cruelly exposed the limitations of the neo-liberal model in which the privatisation of public enterprise and provision has been a key component. Paradoxically, although still unmistakeably neo-liberal in many respects, the response has been for immediate extensive state intervention, including public ownership, to rescue the financial system and, soon after, similar intervention across industry as a response to potential bankruptcy and job loss. The paradox of state intervention with a neo-liberal flavour is, however, far from new and reflects three crucial features of the neo-liberal period that mark the slowdown over the past thirty years following the end of the post-war boom. First, neo-liberalism has been based upon an inconsistent and shifting configuration of ideology, scholarship, policy in practice and representation of reality, with changes within and across these over time, place and issue. Second, underpinning neo-liberalism has been the process of financialisation, not only the phenomenal growth of finance within traditional and new financial markets themselves, but the extension of finance into ever more areas of economic and social reproduction from which it was previously absent or excluded as a profit-making venture, as in pensions, health, education, housing, construction, and so on. Third, neo-liberalism has been through two phases, the first being appropriately termed “shock therapy” although of wider applicability than to the economies of eastern Europe. The state intervened to promote private capital in general and finance in particular without too much regard to the consequences. By contrast, the second phase has been concerned in part to respond to the dysfunction that this has created and, at the same time, and more important, to continue to sustain the process of financialisation. The current crisis signifies the failure of this second phase. But the heritage of neo-liberalism has been to undermine the institutional capacity in government and ethos to develop and implement policy that insulates public provision from financialisation. This signifies a systemic change that cannot simply be remedied by a change in policy or a stronger degree of regulation of the financial sector. The challenge for the future, then, is not only to secure alternative policies for public sector provision but also to restore the capacity to formulate and implement them, not least against what will continue to be the powerful influence of finance.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben FINE & David HALL, 2010. "Contesting neoliberalism: public sector alternatives for service delivery," Departmental Working Papers 2010-27, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
  • Handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2010-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.demm.unimi.it/files/wp/2010/DEMM-2010_027wp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blank, Rebecca M, 2000. "When Can Public Policy Makers Rely on Private Markets? The Effective Provision of Social Services," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(462), pages 34-49, March.
    2. Dani Rodrik, 2006. "The social cost of foreign exchange reserves," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 253-266.
    3. Hellman, Joel S. & Jones, Geraint & Kaufmann, Daniel, 2003. "Seize the state, seize the day: state capture and influence in transition economies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 751-773, December.
    4. John Marangos, 2007. "Was Shock Therapy Consistent with the Washington Consensus?," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 49(1), pages 32-58, March.
    5. Barretta, Antonio & Ruggiero, Pasquale, 2008. "Ex-ante evaluation of PFIs within the Italian health-care sector: What is the basis for this PPP?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 15-24, October.
    6. John Williamson, 2007. "Shock Therapy and the Washington Consensus: A Comment," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 49(1), pages 59-60, March.
    7. Stephanie Blankenburg & José Gabriel Palma, 2009. "Introduction: the global financial crisis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 531-538, July.
    8. John Marangos, 2009. "The Evolution Of The Term 'Washington Consensus'," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 350-384, April.
    9. Andy Denis, 2004. "Two rhetorical strategies of laissez-faire," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 341-357.
    10. Fine, Ben, 1990. "Scaling the Commanding Heights of Public Enterprise Economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 127-142, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public Sector Alternatives; Privatisation; Neoliberalism; Financialisation;

    JEL classification:

    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets
    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • L3 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2010-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (DEMM Working Papers). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/damilit.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.