“There is no alternative” – Margaret Thatcher

 

This paper will attempt to provide a more holistic set of criterion necessary for the construction of consent over neoliberalism. This concept refers to methods by which the public buy-into the neoliberal agenda. How were they convinced that neoliberalism was the most suitable method of capital accumulation?

This paper will concern itself with the discourse surrounding the ‘construction of consent’ of the neoliberal project. Who were the major actors involved? What methods did they have at their disposal to promote neoliberalism? What methods were used, how were these methods utilized, and how the discourse was articulated, at varying scalar levels of governance. It is the contention of this paper that these methods helped creates social cohesion and general public support around the neoliberal project.

This paper’s topic will be derived from the David Harvey’s article titled the ‘Construction of Consent’. He proposes that while neoliberalism was easily enforced in under despotic regimes (Chile and Argentina in the 70’s), for a broad consensus on the appropriateness of neoliberalism under such a large magnitude in democratic countries, required “the prior construction of political consent across a sufficiently large spectrum of the population to win elections. What Gramsci calls ‘common sense’ (defined as ‘the sense held in common’) typically grounds consent” (Harvey, 39).

BREAKDOWN
My paper views the construction of consent around neoliberalism, as involving the agents and collaboration from three key areas: the political, economic, and social spheres. This paper will expand upon the ways in which consent for neoliberalism was “constructed”, by illustrating several important points in these three categories. Elements from all three combined served to promote neoliberalism at the local and national level. These specific characteristics will become more apparent throughout the presentation, but more so through the construction of the paper itself.

The political sphere will emphasize the political actors, rhetoric, discourse and specific political agents involved; the economic will examine the mainly economic actors involved (institutional investors) and review the neoliberal project in general; finally, the social sphere will study the shift in public values required for the construction of consent for neoliberalism.

THEORETICAL CONNECTION
At the theoretical level, this paper will deal with Gramsci’s ‘Common sense’. How was this common sense created within democratic nations? Harvey claims that “powerful ideological influences circulated through the corporations, the media, and the numerous institutions that constitute civil society - such as universities, schools, churches, and profession associations” (40).

The paper goes on to discuss how the construction of consent occurred in different places (the United States and the UK specifically), under the democratically elected governments of Regan and Thatcher in the 1980s respectively. It is the intention of this paper to look at how this consent was constructed at various scales within select countries, including Canada, and determine the dynamics that were required to construct consent for neoliberalism at local and national state levels.

This paper will look at the types of ideological influences that were circulated among the populace, and analyze how this was done at multiple state levels. In this way, it will bring in concepts from works by Brenner and Jessop, by dealing with issues of rescaling at the national, regional and local levels.

The construction of consent can also be viewed from a theoretical perspective. In research done by Brenner and Theodore, they propose:

…to analyze actually existing neoliberalism with reference to two dialectically intertwined but analytically distinct moments: the (partial) destruction of extant institutional arrangements and political compromises through market-oriented reform initiatives; and the (tendential) creation of a new infrastructure for market-oriented economic growth, commodification, and the rule of capital (364).

This dual process, at the theoretical level, provides a basis with which to consider study this transition from a Fordist to post-Fordist system

DISCOURSE
This paper stipulates that the concept of ‘discourse’, as defined by Schmidt to be, “constituting both a set of policy ideas and values and in interactive process of policy construction and communication” (247) does matter in the development and acceptance for the neoliberal project. Her article focuses on the introduction of neoliberalism into France and Britain at roughly the same time, and moves to discuss how neoliberalism was more broadly accepted by the public in Britain than it was in France. “In France, governments of both the left and the right beginning in 1983 were in a continual search for a discourse capable of convincing the public of the appropriateness and not just the necessity of their neo-liberal policy program… In Britain, on the contrary, governments of the right beginning in 1979 developed a legitimating discourse…” (Schmidt, 248).

Given her research into this phenomenon, it can be concluded that discourse is an essential part of creating successful public “buy-in” into any sort of political-economic paradigm. The most important actors involved in this process, created a neoliberal discourse for themselves, at varying levels of government, for dissemination to the public.

PREVIOUS WOLD ORDER
What was the change to neoliberalism from? The previous mode of capital accumulation was the post-war Fordist period, from 1945 to the 1970s. After World War II, the general public had bought into the Fordist system of accumulation based on its concepts of income distribution, equalization mechanisms and equalization payments, and where the nation-state was the primary level of analysis and major unit of economic development. These values have now changed in this new global era, whereby regional economies now have to compete within, and with global national economies.

CONTEXT
The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 added to the existing ailments and conjured high inflation throughout much of the world for the rest of the decade. Soaring oil prices compelled most American businesses to raise their prices as well, with inflationary results. The average annual inflation rate from 1900 to 1970 was approximately 2.5 percent. From 1970, however, the average rate hit about 6 percent, topping out at 13.3 percent by 1979. This period is also known for “stagflation”, a phenomenon in which inflation and unemployment steadily increased, therefore leading to double-digit interest rates that rose to unprecedented levels (above 12% per year). The prime rate hit 21.5 in December 1980, the highest in history. By the time of 1980, when President Jimmy Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the misery index (the sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate) had reached an all-time high of 21.98 percent.

With the marrying of right-wing Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party of US politics during the 1960’s and 70’s, the 1980s allowed for the mobilization of mass amounts of capital, under the form of MNCs, and the promotion of a religious tone in American Republican politics. The Democratic Party however, was hamstrung between the position of improving the material conditions of its broad public base, and the need to “succor” capitalist class support in order to win political elections; it often chose the latter over the former (Harvey, 51).

THE ECONOMIC
This section of the paper will highlight the mainly economic influences over the construction of consent. Of key importance here, are the intellectual support the movement had (the biggest players, and researchers), and what Adam Harmes writes about the influence that institutional investors have in the role of reproduction of neoliberalism. Firstly, a review of the neoliberal project will be necessary.

NEOLIBERAL PROJECT
As the previous unit of analysis within the Fordist system, the role of the state hs changed, and is not designed to: “create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate for such practices. The state has to guarantee the quality and integrity of money. It must also setup those military, defence, police, and legal structures and functions required to secure private proprerty. If markets do not exist, the state must create them.

Neoliberalism, as the dominant method of capital accumulation in the 1980s, arose in tandem with the debate over importance of globalization. Globalization was a major reason for the selling of the need for neoliberalism; only less-government, less union power, and more free-market control was needed to engage in a global economy. In the end, “The answer to the question ‘who put globalization on the agenda’ is, therefore, capitalist class interests operating through the agency of the US foreign, military, and commercial policy” (Harvey, 69).

It is interesting however, as Harvey notes, that “To make the contemporary wave of neoliberalism work, the state has to penetrate even more deeply into certain segments of political-economic life and become in some ways even more interventionist that before” (65). Neoliberalism is premised around the concept of small-government, to allow for the market to operate in the most efficient, and effective manner.

It is strange to note that the rise of neoliberalism, called for a ‘common sense’ understanding and appreciation for neoliberalism, while at the same time stressing the dismantling of communal understanding developed under the Fordist period, and instead fostered the intensification of individualism and a highly consumerist society: “Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism” (Harvey, 42).

INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
This is done through predominantly two complimentary procedures: coercive and consensual ways. Coercive means that the “rise of institutional investors has led to a centralization of investment decision making and to a situation in which neoliberalism is being reproduced in a coercive fashion” (Harmes, 92). Consensual, means that “the specific characteristics of institutional investors are serving to link a broad range of interests in civil society to those of financial institutions” (Harmes 92). Taken as whole, this analysis contributes to the growing international relations scholarship which identifies the increasing power of non-state actors in the international system and their role in the contemporary process of restructuring.

THE POLITICAL
NEOLIBERAL RHETORIC
Politically speaking, the greatest supporters for neoliberalism in the developed world were Regan and Thatcher. Both popularized the work of Friedman and Hayek, when both were previously on the fringes of mainstream economic thought. Thatcher is of great importance here because she, “forged the consent through the cultivation of a middle class that relished the joys of home ownership, private property, individualism, and the liberation of entrepreneurial opportunities” (Harvey, 61).

Otherwise known as TINA, the slogan refers to Margaret Thatcher’s belief that there was and is no conceivable alternative to the process of economic and political globalization, and that neoliberalism would be required to shock the apathy out of the state, to capitalize in the new global economy. Schmidt expands upon the seemingly harsh attitude espoused by Thatcher:

Moreover, she insisted that their success also demanded a return to traditional ‘Victorian’ values of hard work and self-reliance; the rollback of the welfare state in order ‘to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society. From a give-it-to-me to a do-it- yourself nation; to a get-up-and-go instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain;’ and the recognition that inequalities were necessary to encourage the ’spirit of entrepreneurship’ (257).

During this time, as prices rose, the public grew weary of increased inflation and the burdens of high unemployment and a burgeoning welfare system. The vote for change was dramatic.

Reagan himself was a staunch supporter of pro-market economy, minimal government. He is quoted as having said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’.”

THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
In the United States, the concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 and 1990 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C.. The consensus included ten broad sets of recommendations:

• Fiscal policy discipline;
• Redirection of public spending from indiscriminate (and often regressive) subsidies toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like education, health and infrastructure investment;
• Tax reform - broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
• Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
• Competitive exchange rates;
• Trade liberalization - liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
• Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
• Privatization of state enterprises;
• Deregulation - abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions; and,
• Legal security for property rights.

A contentious part of this section is that a “consensus” has not actually occurred among all economists regarding the “best” monetary policy. ‘TATA’ is commonly refered to by Susan George as being, “There Are Thousand Alternatives” in response to Thatchers ‘TINA’. The criticism is that the Washington Consensus only refers to consensus built upon by Washington based economists, and those working at Washington based institutions (IMF, WB, US State Treasury), in an attempt to solve the economic crises in Latin America at the time.

Although Thatcher was never right to claim that “there is no alternative” to the neoliberal vision of a free economy and a minimalist state, “two decades later the global hegemony of thise mode of political rationality means that the urden of proof has shifted: neoliberalism is no longer a dream of Chicago economists or a nightmare of the imaginations of leftist conspiracy theorists; it has become a commonsense of the times” (Peck and Tickell, 381).

WORKFARE VS. WELFARE
Workfare has been touted as a reasonable solution to poverty alleviation during the neoliberal phase. “One consistent theme, however, is that work requirements serve to provide the “appropriate incentives” for recipients of poor relief” (Besley, 249). This idea became more popularized in the Thatcher and Regan years; with an added sense of individualism (necessary for neoliberalism), the public became less responsive and weary of the “downtrodden” using the welfare state to support themselves, all the while slowing down the rest of the economy.

Teeple claims that the construction of consent for neoliberalism required the dismantling of the “policy culture” (the previous Keynesian Welfare State), and the creation of “popular capitalism”, which defines as “simply the most obvious method of building support and a public consensus for the policies of privatization” (97). He provides the example from Britain, during the privatization period of nationally owned companies, to the general public. He explains this concept from an institutional tax-structure perspective: “In this process, everyone becomes part of the “people’s capitalism” so created, and they find themselves “owners” of a minute fraction of what used to be a state-owned corporation… Governments promote another form of “popular capitalism” in the many variations of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)” (Teeple, 98). By incorporating the citizen into the “new way” of economic development, neoconservative governments were able to garnish further public support for the neoliberal agenda. Since individual citizens financial sustainability was tied to the success of these firms, governments were able (or even “forced”) to promote an agenda that created an environment where they could maximize profitability.

Therefore, popular capitalism had two objectives, according to Teeple: 1) to dismantle the KWS and the “policy culture” of the Fordist period; 2) the creation of the “new participatory capitalist system” which undermines the “sentiments in favour of trade unions and, where privatization had taken place, the outright decertification of unions or ate least the weakening of the trade union movement” (99).

The dismantling of the welfare state was a particularly difficult battle, even for someone as stoic and charismatic as Margaret Thatcher: “Here she had to do battle with the entrenched and sometimes traditional upper-middle-class attitudes of her cores supporters…The best should could do was try to force a culture of entrepreneurialism and impose strict rules of surveillance, financial accountability, and productivity on to institutions” (Harvey, 61).

CSR
The ‘Common Sense Revolution’ (CSR) reform package was markedly neo-liberal in nature, closely mirroring the platforms of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. Philosophically it was aligned with the theories of prominent 20th century economist and political theorist Friedrich A. von Hayek.

The central foci of the CSR were tax reduction, balancing the budget, reducing the size and role of government, and an emphasis on individual economic responsibility (often summarized by an opposition to government “hand-outs”). Among other things former Premier of Ontario Mike Harris promised to reduce personal income tax rates by 30% and balance the provincial budget at the same time (which had reached a record $10 Billion deficit under the NDP). CSR was specifically tailored as a reform document. It was presented as a radical change to the status quo of provincial government business, which was widely seen to be poorly managed and inefficient. Indeed, the opening words of the document were “The people of Ontario have a message for their politicians — government isn’t working anymore. The system is broken.” An ominous sentence, similar to that said by Thatcher: there is no alternative.

What this ended up doing was “downloading” much of burden of social services from the provincial to the municipal level. Cities were more responsible for social services, but were also given decreased budgets to do a larger amount of work. The rhetoric of neoliberals at the national level by Presidents and Prime Ministers, is similar to that found at the local level by city mayors. For example, former Premier Mike Harris was quoted in Drainie (2000:78) on the topic of amalgamating cities into the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) as having said: “Anyone who says we wont save money under amalgamation is talking horseshit. But we’ll never save any money until we get rid of those lefties at city hall” (Keil, 594).

THE SOCIAL
VALUES
Which values are being referred to? This paper will build upon the values and traditions emphasized by Harvey. He writes that, “An open project around the restoration of economic power to a small elite would probably not gain much popular support. But a programmatic attempt to advance the cause of individual freedoms could appeal to a mass base and so disguise the drive to restore class power” (Harvey, 40). This was a key strategy utilized by those at the front of the neoliberal project, particularly at the time of the Cold War: associate the concepts of ‘free markets’ with ‘individual freedoms’, while concepts such as ‘communitarian’ were associated with ‘communism’, and therefore, ‘anti-individual freedoms’. This became an important part of the ‘common sense’ concept espoused by Gramsci, and utilized by Harvey in his writings.

Another important value, applicable to both local and national levels to the individual, is that of accountability. Individuals were to be held more accountable for the actions, and their responsibilities to society, as opposed to the previous Fordist system, where individuals received more intervention and state support in their welfare. Thought with notable exceptions, such as within predominantly religious communities, the majority public sentiment shifted from a communal support state to one of individualist responsibility. Pan-handlers, or people in poor socio-economic situations, were responsible for their place in society, and the mentality of middle-income earners blamed a burgeoning welfare system that supposedly supported this behaviour; “Why should they go find a job when the government pays them welfare?” is a common critique of the welfare system.

“The propaganda disseminated to directly sell free enterprise was supported by that aimed at indirectly providing legitimacy to the inequalities it created and ensuring the compliance of workers in the capitalist system” (Beder, 7).

BIG CITY vs. SMALL CITY
Different values were stressed across different geographical places at the local level. Big city values such as the Global City concept, involve large urban centers trying to drive towards being a “global city”. When people think of Ontario, or even Canada, they would immediately associate that with the cities with the most international reach or influence (eg. Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver). For example, Toronto recently bid for the right to host the next Olympics. But the global city concept also refers to the economic and financial clout, and concentration, which these large urban centers command.

Large cities also saw themselves as places of creativity and inventiveness (which ties in with economic competitiveness). Seen as “forward thinking”, this new concept produced a class of creative people, whose major concern question was “Is this place somewhere I’d like to live?” rather than moving to the city to pursue any specific job. For example, large cities such as San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal, are seen as “progressive” cities, which appeal to more “progressive minded” people.

Finally, this leads into the entrepreneurial spirit that large cities have taken over, as large financial and trading centers. Individuality and consumerism were emphasized as being the most important and dominant concepts within Western society. Neoliberalism was “sold” as a solution to all these concerns; neoliberalism (or globalization at the cultural level) would allow large cities like Toronto to access the international level to become a global city, through large exchange of ideas and culture, and also the exchange of capital.

Small cities were subject to a different set of “values” that are commonly referred to as “Bushisms”. Here, values or words such as “freedom”, “democracy”, hit a more familiar chord with any right-wing party’s broad electoral base.

“This political base could be mobilized through the positives of religion and cultural nationalism and negatively through coded, if not blatant, racism, homophobia, and anti-feminism. The problem was not capitalism and the neoliberalization of culture, but the ‘liberals’ who had used excessive state power to provide for special groups (blacks, women, environmentalists, etc)” (Harvey, 50).

INTELLECTUAL SUPPORT
Economists were still highly divided on the issues of economic reform to handle this recession of the US and UK. Keynesians offered similar advice as before: to spend more money to get out of trouble. Thatcher noted that only 6 economists supported her and the decisions she made, while another 300+ offered Keynesian advice.

This involved muddying what the term “liberal” meant, by supporting neoliberalism economically but not culturally. To be socially liberal is certainly different from being economically liberal. “The effect was to divert attention away from capitalism and corporate power as in any way having anything to do with either the economic or the cultural problems that unbridled commercialism and individualism were creating” (Harvey, 50). This lead to the current state of values, particularly in southern American states; for example, in the 2004 American election, President George Bush called Democratic contender John Kerry “another rich liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he’s a man of the people” (CNN, March 8th/2004). The result was that politically liberal was distanced from being economically liberal.

Think-tanks were an important part of this construction of consent as well In the US in particular, conservative foundations and large corporations established and/or funded a new set of think tanks which were ideologically compatible with right wing causes and corporate interests, promoting the free market and attacking government regulation. The famed right-wing economic journal The Economist once provided a guide to right-wing think-tanks, and had this to say about the Heritage Foundation: “First, they help to set the agenda of the political debate. They inject arguments (neatly packaged for a copy-hungry media) into the public arena before they are raised by politicians. This both softens up public opinion and pushes the consensus farther to the right” (Beder, 4). In summation, according to Beder:

The liberalization, deregulation and privatization of the 1980s that made the possibility of global markets a reality was facilitated by a shifting ideological consensus achieved by corporate-funded think tanks-many of which were set up as part of the response to the 1970s legitimacy crisis. These think tanks not only promoted free enterprise and small government but they disseminated and marketed the ideas and theories of a minority of neoconservative economists. Such theories gave a public-interest rationale to liberalization, deregulation and privatization that provided cover for the self-interested motivations of corporations (Beder, 10).

MEDIA
One of the biggest players in the proliferation of neoliberalism, Chomsky and Herman argue in Manufacturing Consent, that media corporations “…serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy” (Chomsky, xi). Herman and Chomsky go on to explain:

Official observers provide perfect example of the use of government controlled “experts” and “pseudo-events” to attract media attention and channel it in the direction of the propaganda line… The media take it for granted that official observers are newsworthy: they are notables, their selection by the government from “reputable” institutions adds to their credibility, and their observations will have effects on opinion and policy (139).

While the above example relates specifically to the calling of experts in to approve of “democratic elections” in Latin American states during the 70s and 80s, it does stress the importance that the government has in controlling the discourse over what the public hears, and limits alternative viewpoints and perspectives.

“The media and communications system and, above all, the so-called ‘information revolution’ brought some significant changes to the organization of production and consumption as well as to the definition of entirely new wants and needs” (Harvey, 62). Harvey refers to this concept in the development of cyberspace, but the important thing to note is that this ‘information revolution’ was instrumental to the way in which key political and business leaders “sold” neoliberalism to the public.

Media propaganda has for a long time been used by power elites as a means to promote their agenda, something that Heath and Potter emphasize througout their book. They cite the use of propaganda during the rise of Nazi power to emphasize their point:

What Nazi Germany appeared to exhibit was crowd psychology not only on an unprecentdeted scale, but also sustained over an extraordniarily long time…Broadcast radio, in particular, had allowed Nazi propaganda to reach millions of homes…Nazi Germany, in other words, marked the dawn of what came to be known as “the mass society”…Thus mass society was born: the bastard child of broadcast media and groupthink. (24-25)

The successes of lessons like this were not lost on the victorious Allied powers after World War 2. From here on, the media became a useful tool for promoting the neoliberal agendas propaganda line.

EDUCATION
Broadly conceived, the purpose of this analysis is to illustrate the downward transmission of ideological norms from the level of social formation to the level of the institution via ideological-discursive practices. Ayers main thesis is that, “insofar as the community college mission is represented through neoliberal discourse, the community college itself is instrumental in reproducing the class inequalities associated with advanced capitalism thereby supporting the position of its instrumentalist Marxist critics” (Ayers, 528).

Having quoted speeches from prominent political leaders, such as current US President George Bush, Ayers argues that “political leaders at the highest level, prominent researchers, and community college leaders [are] refashioning the purpose of education from one of cognitive and intellectual, spiritual, moral, and personal development to one of human capital development; thus, the learner is reduced to an economic entity” (538). The education system, and the select community colleges in particular that Ayers has studied, represent a fundamental shift in the underlying ideology of the KWS education system. No longer merely places for learning and personal growth, educational facilities have come to “re-tool” the population to remain competitive in the global economy.

Ayers’ methodology of analyzing the mission statements of educational institutions supports this trend. When examining the mission statement for a community college in North Carolina, it said, “The college serves as an economic catalyst by assisting business and service sector by training employees”; in Indiana, it reads, “Professional and technical education to prepare students with the knowledge, comprehension, and skills to achieve their goals, meet the needs of Indiana’s employers, and be contributing members of the Indiana economy” (Ayers, 540).

CONCLUSION
In the end, it took an “alliance” of many actors and agents to advance successfully the neoliberal project. This sentiment is emphasized by Harvey: “But I think it most useful to stress the way in which they took what had hitherto been minority political, ideological, and intellectual positions and made them mainstream” (62). A combination of political, economic and social factors was involved in the broad construction of consent for neoliberalism.

The necessity of this proliferation of corporate propaganda in recent decades supported by a massive communications industry shows that ideology still plays a vital role in supporting and legitimizing global capitalism and its goals. However, responding to economic pressures alone would have proven to be a much slower process of consent. In the end, it should be re-emphasized that the creation of the discourse itself by political and economic “right”, is what allowed the neoliberal agenda to successfully engrain itself into the very fabric of Western society, culture, and individual behaviour.

Bibliography
Ayers, D. Franklin. “Neoliberal Ideology in Community College Mission Statements: A Critical Discourse Analysis.” The Review of Higher Education 2005. Volume 28, No. 4, pp. 527-549.

Beder, Sharon. Corporate Propaganda and Global Capitalism - Selling Free Enterprise. Lacy: Manchester University Press, 2005.
ro.uow.edu.au/artspa…

Brenner, Neil and Nik Theodore. “Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”.” Antipode 2002: 351-379

Keil, Roger. “Common-Sense” Neoliberalism: Progressive Conservative Urbanism in Toronto, Canada.” Antipode 2002: 578-601.

Harmes, Adam. “Institutional Investors and the Reproduction of Neoliberalism.” Review of International Political Economy, 5:1 Spring 1998: 92-121

Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Heath, Joseph and Andrew Potter. The Rebel Sell: Why the culture can’t be jammed. Toronto: HarperPerrenial, 2004.

Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1998.

Peck, Jamie and Adam Tickell. “Neoliberalizing Space.” Antipode, 2002: 380-404.

Schmidt, Vivien A “The Politics of Economic Adjustment in France and Britain: When Does Discourse Matter?” Journal of European Public Policy 8:2 April 2001: 247-264.

Teeple, Gary. Globalization and the Decline of Social Reform. Aurora: Garamond Press, 2000.

Email this Post
Citation Styles
Print this Post
Save as PDF
Share & Bookmark