No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Neoliberalism Since the Crisis
... The 2008 financial crisis which was reputed to mark the beginning of the end of the neoliberal era had in practice the opposite effect. During the crisis and its aftermath, the policies implemented have been more of the same: more privatisation, more deregulation, more austerity, more disdain for the welfare State (Cahill and Saad-Filho 2017). Neoliberalism functions as 'parasitic ecology' (Baldacchino 2019, 11) as it has managed to cover the political space that was left empty due to the erosion of liberal and social democracies by developing a 'parasitic modus operandi' (Ibid, 14). ...
Education, under the neoliberal doctrine, has undoubtedly undergone multiple reforms that have led to its economisation. They have also turned education into a mechanism that intensifies the reproduction of inequalities and suppresses diversity, which only helps to perpetuate social exclusion. Despite radical criticism of neoliberalism’s effect on education, neoliberal educational strategies have emerged stronger in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The goal of this paper is to review the effect of the neoliberal paradox on diversity and equity in education and to consider a new socio-economic paradigm that would foster more progressive educational practices. Such practices are advocated by Kalantzis and Cope’s New Learning model, which points to the relationship between senses of belonging and academic achievement in education. To achieve this, this paper adopts a polemical, critical approach to analysing the selected literature. It highlights the paradoxes and contradictions of neoliberalism on diversity and equity and analyses how inequity is perpetuated through neoliberal education. Then, it discusses neoliberal education and considers the reasons criticism of neoliberalism has been rather ineffective. The paper concludes by exploring alternative pedagogical models and contemplating whether education can be recalibrated in the interest of an inclusive and just society.
... The 2008 financial crisis which was reputed to mark the beginning of the end of the neoliberal era had in practice the opposite effect. During the crisis and its aftermath, the policies implemented have been more of the same: more privatisation, more deregulation, more austerity, more disdain for the welfare state (Cahill and Saad-Filho 2017). Undeniably, the ineffectiveness of the critique reveals its incompleteness (Baldacchino 2019). ...
Education is seen as a fundamental tool in the fight against exclusion. Under the
neoliberal doctrine, reforms in education have led to its economisation. They have
also turned education into a mechanism that reproduces inequalities and suppresses
diversity, which only helps to perpetuate social exclusion. Despite radical criticism
of neoliberalism’s effect on education, neoliberal educational strategies have
emerged stronger in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The goal of this
paper is to examine whether equitable, pluralistic education can be achieved within
a neoliberal system that purports to advocate for diversity but ultimately promotes
sameness. To achieve this, a critical literature review is undertaken tackling the
issues of diversity and equity in education and the perpetuation of exclusion
through the implementation of neoliberal education policies. The goal of this
review is to critically assess and synthesise the existing literature that has been
published on the subject over the last decade, in an attempt to contribute to the
academic dialogue influencing the future of education.
Key words: neoliberal governmentality, critical review, depoliticised diversity,
social exclusion, transformative education, civic pluralism.
... According to Cahill (2009, p. 14) it is "this reconfiguration of the state's role that is crucial to an understanding of neoliberalism". Further, in transforming "states in the interests of capital" (Cahill & Saad-Filho, 2017, p. 612) and in wedding "state power to capitalist interests" (Jessop, 2010, p. 42), many of the political and economic conditions essential for equality have been eliminated (Mouffe, 2018). In effect, the rationality that underpins "neoliberal hegemonic formation" (Mouffe, 2018, p. 1) has eroded our ability to challenge the role of the state, to debate the appropriate limits to the scope of the corporation, and to articulate what should and should not be a matter for the public record. ...
This paper explores the ways in which leaked documents can be recruited to contribute to the counter-hegemonic aims of the shadow accounting project. Drawing on material published by Wikileaks as part of Cablegate, our case study focuses on private communication between US Embassy officials about Chevron Nigeria from 2002 to 2010. In analyzing these documents, we mobilize the ideas of both Laclau and Mouffe (1985) and Jessop (1990), emphasizing the role discourse plays in the production and maintenance of hegemonic coalitions between powerful state and market actors, which are central to neoliberalism. Our analysis suggests that the sharing of discourse, much of which occurs in private, allows a hegemonic coalition to agree to a “’popular-national’ programme” (Jessop, 1990) that serves the interests of the coalition, while masquerading as collectively beneficial. In our case study, this private discourse provided the means through which the “moral and intellectual leadership” of the coalition could be embedded in a shared commitment to the maintenance of oil production in Nigeria, despite significant resistance from local communities. In choosing to use leaks to explore the state-capital nexus, we offer a shadow account of the discursive production of hegemony that reveals it to be an ongoing and active project. Importantly, we also show that the very act of creating and recreating hegemony through discourse produces moments of vulnerability and fragility that present counter-hegemonic opportunities. When leaks are mobilized to produce shadow accounts of the contradictions and tensions that exist between the state and capital, the “political frontier” can be restored in ways that re-politicize and radicalize democracy (Mouffe, 2018, p. 4).
Purpose
This study aims to discover the role of accounting and media in hegemonic discourse for divestment valuation of PT Freeport Indonesia shares.
Design/methodology/approach
This study employs data from 608 news articles from 5 national media. This study uses Gramsci's concept of hegemony and Laclau and Mouffe's hegemonic discourse to explore the ideological role of accounting in the formation of historical blocs and investigate the contestants' discursive strategies through the chains of equivalence and difference.
Findings
The incumbent presidential candidate, by involving political and intellectual actors, has succeeded in taking over and shifting PT Freeport Indonesia's hegemony to maintain its power, through the ideology of divestment and accounting. The media played a role in the victory of the pro-divestment bloc in the hegemonic divestment discourse contest. The pro-divestment bloc's discursive strategy uses more formal and technical language styles than the anti-divestment bloc, which uses informal language styles. The pro-divestment bloc uses the key signifiers of low price, improved financial performance, nationalization and welfare, as opposed to the anti-divestment bloc, with the key signifiers of high price, declining financial performance and neoliberalist colonization.
Practical implications
The implications of this research may encourage accounting academics to contribute to emancipatory social movements in the struggle for hegemony. The implication for policy makers is the importance of involving the public, intellectual actors, political actors and the media in supporting diverse state strategic policies in the national interest.
Originality/value
This paper contributes to Gramsci's theory of hegemony and Laclau and Mouffe's hegemonic discourse to understand the role of accounting and media in a nationalization project as an emancipatory social movement, as well as a hegemonic shifting political movement.
Scholars have argued that megaprojects’ turn away from issues of employment, and mass housing are among the core traits of neoliberalism. Turkey, though once seen as a paragon of neoliberalism, problematizes this generalization. Erdoğanist megaprojects have created jobs and residence for millions, and garner consent. ‘Embedded neoliberalism’, a concept frequently used to explain increasing state involvement under neoliberalism, sheds light on the governing AKP’s power, but is insufficient in explaining its core dynamics. Whereas the ‘embedded neoliberalism’ literature downplays the role of the government as a producer, the ‘state capitalism’ literature, as applied to Turkey, overrates the extent to which this country has moved away from neoliberalism. The concept ‘neoliberal statism’ (which puts the emphasis on the consent-generating and political aspects of the new economy) better captures the AKP’s path. Megaproject-driven growth and popular consent, however, are restricted by vulnerabilities that also afflict neoliberal statism as a broader growth strategy.
This chapter accents the contingent and contextual nature of the uber-sport assemblage as realized through its co-constitutive relationship with the neoliberal assemblage. The core precepts of neoliberalism as a political-economic-cultural project are explicated, highlighting its ideological assumptions, and affective investments. This leads to an examination of precisely how, and to what effect, the uber-sport and neoliberal assemblages are linked, or articulated together. Deleuze’s notion of an abstract machine explains the function a neoliberalized uber-sport plays in normalizing neoliberal values and commitments. Focusing on different scales and spaces, the discussion examines how the uber-sport assemblage surreptitiously reinscribes the neoliberal preoccupation with consumption, and the nurturing of the individualized consumer subject, and so reproduces neoliberalism’s iniquitous, divisive, and undemocratic properties, and attendant social hierarchies.
From the legislated ‘embedding’ of neoliberalism as seen with constitutional debt ceilings, through sweeping free trade agreements, to the direct, violent suppression of political freedoms; democracy today seems to be under siege from all sides. In response to these troubling developments, Ian Bruff (2014) recently introduced the concept of ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ to understand increasingly undemocratic forms of state and state action in the current conjuncture. This article argues that although ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ presents a useful development in our understanding of these processes, the concept faces several challenges – in particular, that of obscuring a broader history of authoritarianism and its contradictions, by separating neoliberalism into distinct phases. This article considers two moments of authoritarianism within the history of neoliberalism: the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, and the Greek experience of mandated austerity within the strictures of the European Monetary Union (EMU). Through these examples, the article will engage with claims that the ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ of the post-2007 context is somehow ‘qualitatively distinct’ from earlier forms. It is argued that an enforced separation between these two cases is unhelpful, and that more fruitful directions for this emerging research agenda lie not in a conceptual separation of the past, but rather a consideration of the durability of authoritarian state forms.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.