Global inequality, both within and between countries, has deepened dramatically under the process of neoliberal globalization. Since the 1980s, the rich is richer while the poor and excluded across the globe has increased.[1] The interplay between self- regulating market and society corresponds negatively. Karl Polanyi’s 1944 thesis that a “self-regulating market ‘could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of [its] society’.[2] This is what Munck called as ‘Polanyi problem,' that is to say, how the current tendency towards the creation of a global free-market economy can be reconciled with a degree of stability and cohesion in society. This `stark utopia,' according to Polanyi, would destroy humanity and transform the world into a wilderness.[3]
Strong example of the Polanyi problem is the Neoliberalism. Neoliberal globalization has unleashed transnational corporations in the pursuit of profit under the false economic doctrine that ‘market’ and ‘private ownership’ brings prosperity for all. The neoliberal globalization has a fundamental flaw: it is based on the belief that markets can replace public policy in balancing economic, social and environmental needs.[4] Furthermore, Ikeda argued that the market is monopolistic and privatization disproportionately benefits the rich.[5]
Throughout the 1980s and 90s, the international economic institution such as World Bank, IMF, WTO pushed for the failed programmes of Structural Adjustment throughout the world. Under the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) many indebted countries lost their economic policies autonomy.[6] The policy dismantled the welfare state key instruments that protect the well being of the society leading to deteriorating condition of the people. it was arguable that unregulated global markets were causing enormous disruption to rich and poor societies alike.
This Polanyi Problem which is the interplay between market and society can also be viewed using the empire perspective. Hardt and Negri see Empire as ‘a decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers’. [7] Then the work of money and financial markets is central to the operation of Empire’s disciplinary power in Hardt and Negri’s formulation: Financial power does not just produce contracts and commodities but, more importantly, produces subjectivities, “needs, social relations, bodies, and minds.” In addition Empire it is best to understood as ‘decentered practice of rule that operates through the disciplinary delineation of financial standards and good financial citizenship’.[8] Therefore the practice of pushing unregulated global market is inline with the disciplinary delineation of financial standard of the empire.
Luke see that Empire has it insurgency agendas to incorporates the entire global realm and also a counterinsurgency movement to resist or negotiate the insurgent.[9] In my opinion the empire agendas to push for self-regulated market by dismantling the welfare state through Neoliberalism as part of the insurgency agendas, whereas the counterinsurgency occurred through resistance from the ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements .
The counterinsurgencies, includes but not limited to the street protests, public debunking of narrow neoliberal orthodoxies and the calls for re-regulation, strengthening governance and social protection. Munck also see that above examples might be examples of what Polanyi termed an ‘enlightened’ reaction, a plural, broad based social reaction against the insecurities unfettered markets routinely generated. Furthermore, Munck emphasized on what Polanyi calls a `double movement': while the market spread and all around it was commodied or incorporated it into the empire realm, society protected itself through `a network of measures and policies that was integrated into powerful institutions designed to check the action of the market relative to labor, land and money.'[10] This deep-seated counterinsurgencies resisted the disastrous effects of the self-regulating market and sought to `re-embed' its economic structures within society in a more just and equal manner.
Munck argued that `old' social movements, referring to the working class labor still have an essential significance in the counterinsurgency against the empire agenda of self-regulated market. He saw that the trade unions have begun to engage, unevenly and sporadically with the World Social Forum and other more punctual initiatives of the counter-globalization movement. Also, unions influenced social policy and assisted the development of institutions to regulate markets. All in all, Trade unions have transcended narrow special interest politics to take on the Polanyian task of regulating or controlling the free market. [11]
At this point I agree with Muncks conclusion that global labor movement’s strategy includes the taking up the tasks of development and poverty alleviation as it rises to the challenge of a counter-hegemonic response to the Polanyi problem faced by globalization from above. Thus, further recognition needed to empower the power of the labor.
Based on the notion that faith in the magic of the market has faded with the realization that well-functioning markets require effective States if they are to operate without distortions and balance out uneven social outcomes.[12] ILO strived for more regulated market with A modern, effective welfare state and vibrant tripartism remain central to sustainable development with its three pillars of economic development, social development and environmental protection. Several vital ingredients is through increased respect for the freedom of association of workers and employers, the reinforcement of the role of labour administration within government and active labour market policies based on social dialogue.[13] But of course, there is no free lunch, that is to say, the labor need to struggle hard to play the role of addressing the Polanyi problem.
[1] Ikeda, Satoshi, “Imperial Subjects, National Citizenship, and Corporate Subjects: Cycles of Political Participation/Exclusion in the Modern World-System”,p.333, Citizenship Studies Vol. 8, No. 4, December 2004.
[2] Craig and Porter , “Development beyond Neoliberalism”,p.3 Routledge, NY, 2006
[3] Munck, “Globalization, Labor and the `Polanyi Problem”, p.252. Labor History Vol. 45, No. 3, August 2004
[4] Director-General’s introduction to the International Labour Conference, “Decent work for sustainable development”, ILC 96-2007/Report I (A), p.3 available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_085092.pdf (accessed at 1 Feb 2010)
[5] Ikeda, Satoshi, “Imperial Subjects, National Citizenship, and Corporate Subjects: Cycles of Political Participation/Exclusion in the Modern World-System”,p.333, Citizenship Studies Vol. 8, No. 4, December 2004.
[6] Ikeda, Satoshi, Idem p.336
[7] Luke, Timothy.W, “The Insurgency of Global Empire and the Counterinsurgency of Local Resistance: new world order in an era of civilian provisional authority”. P.423, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2007
[8] De Goede, Marieke, “Underground Money”.p.145 Cultural Critique - 65, Fall 2007
[9] Luke, Timothy.W, “The Insurgency of Global Empire and the Counterinsurgency of Local Resistance: new world order in an era of civilian provisional authority”. P.423, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2007
[10] Munck, Globalization, Labor and the `Polanyi Problem'p. Labor History Vol. 45, No. 3, August 2004, p.252
[11] Munck, Idem, p.264
[12] Director-General’s introduction to the International Labour Conference, Decent work for sustainable development ILC 96-2007/Report I (A), p.19 available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_085092.pdf (accessed at 1 Feb 2010)
[13] Idem, P.19
No comments:
Post a Comment