There is an emergent Bush-Wolfowitz Project. The White House has nominated US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as next head of the World Bank to replace James Wolfensohn. This development has implications for the rest of the world. Surely, nothing much substantial will change in the global political economy of development as capitalist market-led development shall continue anyway. But the changing of the Bank's leadership may also mean the changing of the strategy in managing the global capitalist system and its contradictions as well as in promoting continued capital accumulation.
In the essay I submitted a few months ago to Professor J. Gabriel Palma of Cambridge University, entitled 'Governing Global Capitalism: The Politics of Ideology and the Economics of Information', I argue that it would be analytically useful to think of the Bank, in partnership with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as ‘problem-solving institutions’ geared at the management of the general conditions for capitalist accumulation and at resolving the contradictions capitalism induces. ‘Problem-solving’, in this sense, does not adhere to Robert Cox’s narrow conception of a ‘problem-solving’ orientation as the management of the status quo, which appears to be uncritical and unreflective of current realities. This is because, as Paul Cammack rightly points out, ‘there is no moment at which a “problem-solving” orientation aimed at maintaining the status quo is enough. The managers of domestic and local economies need just a “critical” a perspective as their opponents, if by “critical” we understand an analytical perspective which is mindful of complex processes of change, the clashes of interest they provoke, and the need to find innovative responses as new situation arise’. Beyond their own triumphalistic rhetoric, the global managers of globalising capitalism – the Bank and the Fund – are all too aware of capitalism’s contradictions and crises. It is for this reason that globalisation is presented not only as a blueprint for continuing development through the market but also as a project of crisis management.
The Bank and the Fund are not welfare institutions that prioritise distribution function. In reality, they cannot anymore also be viewed as Keynesian institutions prioritising stabilisation function because they have become bastions of neo-liberalism as they call for, if not forces, the restructuring of the world economy, targetting the policies of welfare and developmentalism along the conditions that satisfy capitalist profit. Neither the view that the Bank and the Fund are regulatory institutions – which prioritise regulation function of correcting market failures such as monopoly, negative externalities, and asymmetric information – would be adequate in analytically capturing the complexity of the governance of global capitalism.
There are at least two models of neo-liberalism that have emerged since the early 1980s: the Washington Consensus (1980s - early 1990s) and the post-Washington Consensus (mid-1990s - present). The two models contrast not along the ‘state versus market’ debate as active state involvement in making markets work has always been present in the history of political economy. The contrast lies in their respective strategies and focus in the management of the global capitalist system and the drive for accumulation. The Washington Consensus focused on an ‘open market economy’ through macro-economic structural adjustments in the policies of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization. The post-Washington Consensus, on the other hand, focuses on ‘competitiveness’ through a comprehensive institutionalization of ‘competition cultures’, especially on labour market reforms and the development of ‘human capital’. This post-Washington Consensus is the so-called Wolfensohn-Stiglitz project. Wolfensohn is the outgoing head of the Bank to be replaced by Wolfowitz. Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the Bank, is a nobel prize winner for his 'economics of information' scholarship. This Wolfensohn-Stiglitz project focuses on the use of institutions (including the state), policy coordination, and the ‘information-theoretic approach’ as the strategy pursued by the Bank and all pro-capitalist political forces in the management of global capitalism, in particular the utilisation of non-market responses (that is, not merely setting prices right and the faith in the magic of the invisible hand) to address market imperfections.
The world now awaits for another neo-liberal offensive to be carried out by a military hardliner defender of American interest. My fear is that ‘new imperialism’ may be transformed to what I would call 'post-new imperialism'. New imperialism, as depicted in the process of globalisation, is a unique way of capital to dominate without exercising direct extra-economic power such as the political institutions and the military. Under new imperialism, uneven development does not anymore mean a system of the rich robbing the poor. All that is done is to subject and subordinate the workers and poor countries to capitalist market, and hence in a geography where majority are proletarianised and impoverished, and where both capital and labour are dependent on the market for their survival and self-reproduction. Post-new imperialism may go back to the old, pre-capitalist system of appropriation where capital accumulation is carried out through direct ‘extra-economic’ coercion.
The emergent Bush-Wolfowitz Project is about imposing the imperial hegemony of the US in particular and global capitalism in general through the subjection of everyone to the imperatives of the capitalist market that is sustained by direct extra-economic power of imperial political coercion and military rule. What Wolfowitz and the pro-capitalist forces are about to face is how to protect the interest of American capital in particular vis-a-vis the fastest-growing and strengthening economies of China, the European Union, and East Asia, and how to manage global capitalism in general vis-a-vis the increasing rage of the billions of people in misery around the world.
In the essay I submitted a few months ago to Professor J. Gabriel Palma of Cambridge University, entitled 'Governing Global Capitalism: The Politics of Ideology and the Economics of Information', I argue that it would be analytically useful to think of the Bank, in partnership with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as ‘problem-solving institutions’ geared at the management of the general conditions for capitalist accumulation and at resolving the contradictions capitalism induces. ‘Problem-solving’, in this sense, does not adhere to Robert Cox’s narrow conception of a ‘problem-solving’ orientation as the management of the status quo, which appears to be uncritical and unreflective of current realities. This is because, as Paul Cammack rightly points out, ‘there is no moment at which a “problem-solving” orientation aimed at maintaining the status quo is enough. The managers of domestic and local economies need just a “critical” a perspective as their opponents, if by “critical” we understand an analytical perspective which is mindful of complex processes of change, the clashes of interest they provoke, and the need to find innovative responses as new situation arise’. Beyond their own triumphalistic rhetoric, the global managers of globalising capitalism – the Bank and the Fund – are all too aware of capitalism’s contradictions and crises. It is for this reason that globalisation is presented not only as a blueprint for continuing development through the market but also as a project of crisis management.
The Bank and the Fund are not welfare institutions that prioritise distribution function. In reality, they cannot anymore also be viewed as Keynesian institutions prioritising stabilisation function because they have become bastions of neo-liberalism as they call for, if not forces, the restructuring of the world economy, targetting the policies of welfare and developmentalism along the conditions that satisfy capitalist profit. Neither the view that the Bank and the Fund are regulatory institutions – which prioritise regulation function of correcting market failures such as monopoly, negative externalities, and asymmetric information – would be adequate in analytically capturing the complexity of the governance of global capitalism.
There are at least two models of neo-liberalism that have emerged since the early 1980s: the Washington Consensus (1980s - early 1990s) and the post-Washington Consensus (mid-1990s - present). The two models contrast not along the ‘state versus market’ debate as active state involvement in making markets work has always been present in the history of political economy. The contrast lies in their respective strategies and focus in the management of the global capitalist system and the drive for accumulation. The Washington Consensus focused on an ‘open market economy’ through macro-economic structural adjustments in the policies of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization. The post-Washington Consensus, on the other hand, focuses on ‘competitiveness’ through a comprehensive institutionalization of ‘competition cultures’, especially on labour market reforms and the development of ‘human capital’. This post-Washington Consensus is the so-called Wolfensohn-Stiglitz project. Wolfensohn is the outgoing head of the Bank to be replaced by Wolfowitz. Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the Bank, is a nobel prize winner for his 'economics of information' scholarship. This Wolfensohn-Stiglitz project focuses on the use of institutions (including the state), policy coordination, and the ‘information-theoretic approach’ as the strategy pursued by the Bank and all pro-capitalist political forces in the management of global capitalism, in particular the utilisation of non-market responses (that is, not merely setting prices right and the faith in the magic of the invisible hand) to address market imperfections.
The world now awaits for another neo-liberal offensive to be carried out by a military hardliner defender of American interest. My fear is that ‘new imperialism’ may be transformed to what I would call 'post-new imperialism'. New imperialism, as depicted in the process of globalisation, is a unique way of capital to dominate without exercising direct extra-economic power such as the political institutions and the military. Under new imperialism, uneven development does not anymore mean a system of the rich robbing the poor. All that is done is to subject and subordinate the workers and poor countries to capitalist market, and hence in a geography where majority are proletarianised and impoverished, and where both capital and labour are dependent on the market for their survival and self-reproduction. Post-new imperialism may go back to the old, pre-capitalist system of appropriation where capital accumulation is carried out through direct ‘extra-economic’ coercion.
The emergent Bush-Wolfowitz Project is about imposing the imperial hegemony of the US in particular and global capitalism in general through the subjection of everyone to the imperatives of the capitalist market that is sustained by direct extra-economic power of imperial political coercion and military rule. What Wolfowitz and the pro-capitalist forces are about to face is how to protect the interest of American capital in particular vis-a-vis the fastest-growing and strengthening economies of China, the European Union, and East Asia, and how to manage global capitalism in general vis-a-vis the increasing rage of the billions of people in misery around the world.
5 comments:
Hi, Bonn,
salamat sa blog na iyan.
i guess (i repeat, i guess.... and i am being tame in this) what you bush-wolfowitz project is no different from the previous designs made at the US capitol.
those who wrote in the pages of Asian Perspective (vol2 no. 4) about the bush doctrine's exceptionalism and unilateralism speak well of the grand design, not necessarily of bush's alone (or even with wolfowitz's participation).
the rise of and possible subcription by the spectrum of right forces to the bush doctrine, i believe, has been facilitated by the 9/11 event, thanks indeed to bin laden. were it not for that incident, the US would
be bereft of reasons/excuses in it transgression and disregard for the UN and other international regime prescriptions about solving conflict; nay, the global civil society has ably demonstrated its opposition to the neoliberalism in the socalled globalizing world (economy).
sangkusing lang.
best regards.
Roli Talampas
Bonn,
Sana ang pag-unawa mo sa mundo "global capitalist system" ay nakatutulong sa pag-unawa mo sa sarili nating bayan. It is nice to know the schools of thought – neo-liberals, neo-conservatives, post new-imperialism, post neo-liberals (meron din ba?), post-modernism, new and old imperialism. Habang ako'y nag-aaral ng mga ideyang ito, ako ay nasa neo-alapaap at post new-kawalan kapag nahaharap sa problema ng ating bayan.
Do you know any place without regressing back in time where an alternative exist other than the market for capital and labour to reproduce?
Whether it is the "capitalist class" or not who appropriates, accumulation of wealth is necessary for development. Do you know of development without accumulation? Dito sa ating bansa? Maybe the issue is where the "accumulation" gets invested.
Do you know of any human society whose economy develops overtime without becoming strong militarily (no relative comparative analysis please)? Paano natin gawin sa bayan natin without resorting to the same militarist mindset (like armed revolution of the left)?
Kung si Stiglitz ay post-washington consensus, ano naman kaya si Jeffrey Sachs? Millennium Consensus? I will be glad to be labeled later as post-millennium consensus.
Joey
Hello:
Yes, the capitalist system may have its faults. But it has never collapsed. Many a time in many countries, it has reformed itself to give a greater number of citizens better lives. Tell that to the late Soviet Union and to North Korea.
Ike
Bonn,
I hate to say this, but the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were installed, albeit insiduously, to protect American Capital worldwide, don't you think? hehe...
Whether or not the purpose of their inception is to help the developing world or assist the fledgling & poor countries, I think they are simply there to protect American interests... They are simply like our local financial intermediaries operating in a grand scale -- say the world.
Therefore, the appointment (or recommendation) of this right-winger comes not as a surprise to us; rather, as an incidental by-product of the shifting world order post-9/11.
Ryan
We share the same fears. As much as we are all aware that third world societies like ours are very much implicated in these kinds of imperial delusions, the setbacks, their degrees of damage included, of such project are difficult to predict. We can consider Wolfensohn and Stiglitz as one of those few who were somewhat "moved" by discursive space formations created by the resilience of globalized anti-globalisation movements (i.e. WSF).
But then, we are confronted by the conundrum presented by the present Bush-Wolfowitz tandem. What will happen afterwards? What damages can they wreak? How will our societies be affected by these damages?
Post a Comment