Space of Global Capitalism - Research Paper Example

Space of Global Capitalism Capitalism is a system of economy whereby production means, industry and production are majorly in the hands of private owners. The main aim of these private owners is usually profit making in the economy. Capitalism comprises of wage labor, markets which ate competitively, and the accumulation of capital. Capitalist economy is run by the parties, which determine the services and goods to be exchanged, and the assets involved. Globally, there are several models of capitalism. These models usually vary in terms of public ownership scope, regulation and the intervention roles. The analysis of capitalism has taken different perspectives depending on the persons involved in the study; with historians, political economists and economists all having varied perspectives. This difference in perspectives has led to the emergence of three main types namely: state capitalism, welfare capitalism and the laissez-faire capitalism. Every perspective highlights the social policies inclusion, public ownership and the dependency on the marketing degree. Policy and politics determine the rules that define the private property as well as the extents of free markets. In many states, there exists what termed as mixed economies are. Mixed economy refers to a blend between elements that are market driven and those elements that are planned. Other nations have capitalism that is termed as crony capitalism. Such systems comprise of the dominance of cartels, nepotism and corruption. Global capitalism can be used to refer to the means and way of production and distribution of services and goods across the world. Various forms of government have operated under capitalism over the different span of time, cultures and places. Capitalism was widely embraced majorly by the Western World following the unprecedented demise of the feudalism. Capitalism has continued to be the dominant economic system across countries globally, with a stronger cooperation being in the industrialized western countries. There are different points of emphases with regards to capitalism in different countries across the world. Those economists who hold on to the liberal and lessees-faire perspectives put emphasis on the degree of government’s limited control over the existing markets. More still, this school of thought emphasizes on the property right’s importance. Another group of Keynesian and Neoclassical macro-economists place the emphasis on the government’s role in the regulation of the market in order to prevent monopolization and the role of softening the boom effects and the bust cycle. Moreover, wage labor, labor exploitation and accumulation of capital form the basis of interest of the Marxian economists. Class, wage labor, power relations and private property form the focus for most of the political economists. (Knox, Agnew & McCarthy, 2008) Capitalism is credited to Karl Marx. In his study of the magnum opus capital, Marx focused on the production process based on capitalist mode of production in a design that has today come to be known as Marxism. However, in his analysis, Marx rarely used the word “capitalism” but in the political interpretation of his work, the word “capitalism” had been used twice. On the other hand, Harvey (2001) indicates that neo-liberalism is attributed to economic liberalism and those in support of it are advocates of liberalization of the economy, more enhanced private sector role, and deregulation of the business operations, privatization, open markets and free trade in the modern society. Neo-liberalism is a philosophy based on the economic structure, and that emerged around 1930s. It was a creation of the liberal European Scholars who were in the verge of forging a way between the middle-way and the Third. These scholars were trying to bridge the gap between those philosophers who had the collectivist planning process of thinking and those who believed in classical liberalism. The development and pronouncement of this philosophy were further propelled by the desire and urge to avoid a repeat of the failures in economic issues across the globe in the year's 1930s. Was to blame at that time for capitalism that was unfettered was conventional wisdom. Neoliberal philosophy varied over the decades especially with the entrance of classical liberalism, which had more of laissez-faire approach and doctrinarian. The philosophy provided for a model which was later termed to be the social market economy, defying the principles of a market economy regulated by rules and guidance of string states. There was a drastic decline in the usage of the word “neoliberal” around the year 980s. This term was later to be reintroduced during the reforms on Chile’s economic structure but Augusto Pinochet. However, the way the term was used had shifted. Apart from being a term attributed to connotations that were viewed negatively by the critics, “neo-liberalism” was now used more radically and had a touch of laissez-faire ideas of the capitalists. Neo-liberalism was than being associated with Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek’s theories. The scholars who were speaking Spanish now had a similar usage of neo-liberalism. Neoliberal currently has diffused into English and is being used in relation to initiatives that are legislative bound, and that relate to the reducing of state control over the markets, privatization that is more enhanced, deregulation and free trade push. Some scholars have branded neo-liberalism as “capitalism that has its gloves off”. There are indications to the fact that neo-liberalism is not commonly known among the general public, and more so the United States Of America. The term “neo-liberalism” is today used to condemn the policies of liberalization and those in its support. (Mann, 2010) Neo-liberalism is quickly shaping a new social order. The new social order is attributed to the fact that neo-liberalism has since been the most commonly used word in the economic, social and political fields. The emergence and use of the term neo-liberalism have been seen in the attempts to provide an analysis of the extents of the global economic crisis. In an attempt to shape a new social order, neo-liberalism has been used in the analysis of the relevance between social life and the free market requirements. In this regard, the concept of neo-liberalism can be said to be representing a transition of remarkable historical based phenomenon, with deep meanings that are rooted on the construct of ideological development. It is majorly based on the state interventionism denial in which there is sheer advocacy of the free market. The proponents of neo-liberalism have only characterized their positions as liberalism despite the fact that there is a difference between contemporary liberalism and classical liberalism. The economic globalization has currently been characterized by the oligopolistic neo-liberalism as opposed to the neoclassical theory’s free competition. Authors have indicated that neo-liberalism has greatly become a process that is dominated by regulation and reconstruction, and the strong influence of the business exercise on the other processes. This signal can as well be termed as “commodification” or “marketization” : however, there was a choice for the term “neo-liberalism” instead of the two. The origin and applicability of neo-liberalism are specific to history. (McKinnoc & Cumbers 2007) Today’s towns and cities are classified and categorized cultural heritage and popularity league, which exploits the cities’ distinctiveness. This has been the most powerful and profitable instrument for the governing authorities of the cities, playing a role in regenerating and acquisition of an advantage that is competitive in the globalization front. Neo-liberalism is an important factor in the structuring of policies to govern the urban centers. It is essential in providing an adequate response for the ever rapidly changing conditions of the socio-economic set up in line with the new order in the economy. The attainment of this new order is in two different dimensions. The cultural heritage of the people or city can be used as one of the economic development tools. On the other hand, there should be a continuity and sustainability of the cultural heritage over time. However, attempting to remove those obstacles deemed to be leading to competitiveness can sometimes have bad effects on different societies and the cultural heritage of the cities just as it was the case with Turkey. The fulfillment of the objectives of the economy and to solve conflicts, cultural heritage is necessary. This has been ascertained by planners, historians, artists and conservationists. Neo-liberalism can be used to impact positively on the economy of a society especially in this age of neo-liberalism. The neoliberal politics do have an impact and shape the debates that exist concerning the cultural heritage of the people. As Springer (2010) observes, a lot of generational politics have been shaped by societal heritage and have both played a part in the global economy. It is an important tool for making some things to work. For example, the separation of powers and constitutionalism is greatly affected by neo-liberalism. The approaches that are pragmatic and respect for tradition are the characteristics of neo-liberalism. This has, in fact, led to much adoptions of several conservative movements in areas like United Kingdom and Chile under Margaret Thatcher and Pinochet respectively. A lot of institutional levels’ political decisions are affected by processes of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalization can, therefore, be conceived as a reorganization, which involves rearranging the modes of governance which are institutionalized and that are bound collectively. Neo-liberalism has a bearing on the governance of the nation. This neo-liberalism’s political formation can well be understood in the context of a business centric politics, where there is a struggle over the authority of politics and where there is a share of the ideology. The internal dynamics of neo-liberalism in other words are usually pinned on the common sense which is unquestioned. Moreover, the political formation of neo-liberalism is primarily revealed through specific notions that are pegged on the responsibilities of the state, specifically on the unleashing of the market forces in areas where it’s possible. In this aspect, neo-liberalism can be said to rest on market civilization entrenchment. This is the means through which the expansion of capitalists is based on the legitimating of the discourse that is neoliberal and the developmental growth. The sense of neo-liberalism in governmentally is therefore an assemblage of technologies, strategies, rationalities and techniques that are concerned by the rule of mentality in the facilitation of distant governance. Over the years, several people in different continents, those working; the worthy people and those being oppressed have started to initiate mobilization, confrontation and fight against the so-called neo-liberalism. Most notably, the Latin American people have led in the struggle against neo-liberalism. This has spread across the entire world in the span of the last 25 years. Post neo-liberalism or anti neo-liberalism is taking a sweep over the continents, all the way from the Mexican city of Oaxaca, running through Venezuela and Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia among other countries to the Chilean city of Tierra del Fuego. Neo-liberalism has different faces. To begin with, neo-liberalism is a process of structural disintegration or fragmentation of the general mobilization, solidarity and support network. Across the globe and specifically in Asia, Latin America and Europe, neo-liberalism has taken shape and effect because of the disintegration, fragmentation and pulverization of the worker’s movements, urban mobilization and the peasant’s movements of the old years of the fifties and the eighties. The consolidation of neo-liberalism has been propelled by the destruction of both the cohesion fabrics and solidarity networks, and the complete fragmentation of the society. Privatization has also led to the taking of form, imposition and the advancement of neo-liberalism in the world. Pension funds, forest, minerals, land, public saving and other public and wealth properties are among the privatization properties that have characterized neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism’s introduction has also been accompanied by a reduction of states and the deformation of the same states as commonwealth or collective ideas. The introduction of neo-liberalism was majorly aimed at destroying the widely viewed notion of a state as being a commonwealth or collective property, bringing in the ideology that is corporate, and that is based on the accumulation of wealth by a few individuals up to the fifth generation. The implementation of the ideology of neo-liberalism has since shaped the political life of states. For example, neo-liberalism has led to a limitation of the political support among the people. This has seen the re-utilization of democracy, where elections are held in a span of every four years, therefore, limiting democracy to a given number of periods. The citizens, who are the voters, have limited support in as far as making of decisions is concerned. This is because the political class has taken over the responsibility of representing the people, their interests and what they stand for. This means that the citizens usually have very little say in what happens or is to be done in their respective countries of cities. The above mentioned aspects comprise of the main pillars of neo-liberalism. This also reflects on the fragmentation of worker organizations and the laboring sectors, the impediments on the ability or space of the people to make their own decisions, states that have diminished and the privatization of resources which should otherwise be public, among others. The 1970s marked the rise of neo-liberalism across the globe. This led to the implementation of the idea differently by different governments. In trying to implement the general neo-liberalism, some governments ended up with structures that only spelt doom for the poor communities and individuals in their respective countries. However, there are other governments who in the application of neo-liberalism, impacted positively on the lives of the citizen. There has been a strong argument based on the views of neo-liberalism, with some who were negatively affected by it claiming that this was the main purpose of having it during others who have seen it work well strongly defending neo-liberalism. (Jones, 2008) Neo-liberalism has taken the center stage in the current communalist politics, with the latter being unable to prove any viable alternative, or resisting neo-liberalism. There is intense localization of responsibilities and costs which has been fuelled by the increase of the diminishing of the welfare state. Moreover, communism has been creating a path of propagating neo-liberalism, but in the name of political participation and localism. There has since been a rise in power and wealth that is greatly concentrated mainly at the helm of the global elites, governance regimes in the international level and the corporate states. There is the need for the social ecologists to dive into a reconsideration of the commitment to the politics based on communalism and libertarian municipalism’s dual power strategy. This should be made in respect to the conditions that are of modern political-economic Neo-liberalism is known to have taken different forms, but there are three main tenets that have since been identified by different scholars. Firstly, the embracing of business with the aim of fulfilling policy objectives is one attribute of neo-liberalism. This comprises of both public goods privatization and the outsourcing of the various government services. Through neo-liberalism, there has been globalization of capital through trade agreements and trade liberalizations. Neo-liberalism aims at managing privatization fallout, specifically based on the inequality levels that have been on the increase in the recent past. This is mainly through efforts that are business based. There has also been a focus that is based on entrepreneurialism of individuals and self responsibility. Economic development via social enterprise and private-public partnership has also been on the focus. (Dicken, 2004) Most appreciated initiatives that are localist based and which operate within the working class and poor communities, social enterprises, nonprofit and community based organizations usually run in line with the self responsibility neo-liberalism. The communities and individuals in this case are expected to take the responsibilities of caring for themselves and addressing the barriers that they face. The individuals are compelled by the situations to become entrepreneurs, however, they usually have a limited capital access due to the packed nature of the deck and the fact that the wealth sought is extracted from the various communities that the same individuals dwell in. These strenuous conditions that exist in the society have made it hard for the programs to meet the need of the many individuals. This is how the neo-liberalism has created a change in the social setting of several communities. The corporate states have remained to be strong as a result of being strengthened by this state; hence they have maintained the army labor, surplus among other societal resources. Neo- liberalism can be said to have led to the rise of inequality in the society, posing a big question of how the social ecologists would work out ways of addressing the challenge. There is a definition of neo-liberalism that slightly points towards marketization quest, flexibilization of labor market, economic and trade liberalization that are attributed to the welfare of a people. Over the previous decades, there have been transformations of the national structures and the global developments. Poverty has increased by a number of factors. These include the reduction of income distribution, sharing of wages being seized, investments and profits being decoupled, privatization of public resources, multinational corporation expansion, the increase of the mobility of global capital, a movement to floating currencies from fixed and eventually, the trade barrier removal. Neo-liberalism has also led to the increased need of wealth accumulation and the achievement of massive profits in the short term. This has led to the utter exhaustion of the limited resources provided for by the capacity of the earth. This process has been referred to as roll back by certain scholars to mean a backtracking into the post-war state of warfare. The neoliberal economization processes fell into different market failures, ecological limits and social antagonisms. This has finally ended up in a roll out of the states. Historically speaking, the apparatus of the state have always fallen behind creating a safeguard for the business structures and behind the designs. (Castree, Coe, Ward & Samers 2004) The governments have always and are still continuing to participate in the daily to day running of the economies directly. For instance, the spending of the military had been growing, similar to the post Cold War era. There is much military buildups in the offing, with an acceleration of the security sector growth. This can be attributed to the rise of neo-liberalism. The public sphere has been disillusioned, together with the rise of what can be termed as “fear” industry. The increase in the social space segmentation is evident in the contrast that exists between the shanty towns that are policed and isolated, and the increase in communities living in gates. Similarly, there has been a dramatic curtail of the functions of the capitalist states through modes of private-public partnerships. These partnerships have been affected in different levels, starting from the top regional levels to the city and local levels down there. Recently after the financial meltdown of 2008, the state came out and functioned as the last resort lender, playing the part of an institution that is supposed to offer a lending hand to the corporations that are too large to undergo closure. Better still, there is a wide implementation of the austerity regimes among the capitalist states. This is complemented by the cutting down of the social budget expenditures while avoiding the curtailing of the spending leaning towards security, which is among the most important budget deficit contributor. The initialization of the economy has gone hand in hand with all these developments. In this aspect, neo-liberalism is seen to be founded on different philosophical traditions pegged to essentializing the economizing calculable and calculative agents of behavior and the reduction of the decisions made with regards to all the different life aspects to calculus utilitarianism. The conceptualizing and understanding of the modern global economy complexities have been challenging yet it is a task that is very vital. There is the need to have a critical evaluation of the interpretive framework’s potential or other the perspective of the global production network in order to have a complete analysis of the global economy and its effects on the overall terrestrial development. The global economy has faced a number of complex issues, inequality in the geographic fundamentals and any approach to the definition and analysis of the global economy has to go above the mere superficial but has to incorporate all the actions that are complex and all the interactions of the different interest groups and various institutions; including cultural, social, political and economic, operating at the multiscalar levels through power relations that are asymmetrical and dynamic in order to produce outcomes that are specific to the geographical locations. (Castree, 2009) Getting to have a definite term for globalization may prove to be difficult, especially given the fact that this term was at some time used to mean a lot of good in the world. In the past, globalization was used to refer to the rising of the capitalism in the market, and that greatly contributed to the boom of the United States of America’s Economy. Globalization per say has led to massive job creation across the globe all the way from Malaysia down to Mexico. Through neo-liberalism and global capitalism, there has been a great opening to consumer goods from the western world. This has led to the bringing of phone services to over three hundred million households in the third world countries. This has also seen a transfer of over 2 trillion dollars from the developed countries to the underdeveloped economies through commercial loans, bond investments and equity. Dictators have been toppled in many dictatorial states through the sharing and viral spread of information across countries that earlier had been shelled against gaining aces to this information. The space of global capitalism has since had effect on the administration and governance of the different countries. Neo-liberalism has not only produced a new social order, but has also gone a step further in creating its own geography, as well. Global capitalism can be credited for the rampant rise of globalization and increased access to the internet that in need has narrowed down the valley that stood between the poor nations and the nations regarded as the richest. The late 20th century ushered in a new precedence, in the global capitalism. This saw a change from the norms to the embracing of technology. Meanwhile, there was a huge failure of socialism in the East Africa, who doubled up as a blessing to the region. Neo-liberalism and the liberalization of the market might have lifted the boats but in certain cases, this led to serious damages to the underdeveloped countries, both socially and economically. The graduation of global capitalism into the next frontier will require a more sophisticated consideration into the open markets benefits and costs. (Castree, 2007) Neo-liberalism has greatly led to global capitalism. This overwhelming growth and embracing of capitalism has led many investments that have been made recklessly across the globe, causing much harms. However, these hazardous effects can easily be addressed by the respective governments and through set down corporate policies. Neo-liberalism may have been mooted by an ideology that was mainly based on philosophical thinking, but its impacts have overtly gone beyond ideologies and philosophies. In fact, the effects of neo-liberalism have greatly been felt in the economic world, shaking the global economy. Neo-liberalism can be said to be the main conduit of global capitalism that has greatly shaped the economic path of the entire globe. The concern should not even be based on the question of the goodness or badness of free markets, but the focus should be based on whether the production of widely different goods impacts positively or negatively on the economy of the respective countries. The extent to which global capitalism has gone is astonishing. Global capitalism, which might have been catapulted by the rise of neo-liberalism, has had a high impact on the global economy. For example, the East Asia economies have experienced a greater boost and rapid growth whereas the rest of developing world has had to contend with many challenges and negative impacts. Practically, the Latin America’s income expanded in 1960s-1970s by a margin of 75% at a time when the entire region’s economy was closed. However, this did not proportionally reflect on the growth of the income as there was a realization of just 6% in the last two decades. On the other hand, things have not been well with the old Eastern bloc and the Sub-Saharan Africa. This is basically because of the projections of the World Bank which have indicated that the poverty levels in these countries have drastically increased. For instance, projections have indicated that there has been a rise in the number of persons living on one dollar per day. The number has since risen to 1.3 billion people. From these facts, it is clear that neo-liberalism has had a great impact on the social life of the people, as well as mapping out its own geographical order. Global capitalism, an animal of neo-liberalism has led to a disruption of entire societies, sieving the citizens into various classes of life. From the practices of the multinationals to the financial meltdown in the western countries, the developed countries have been working on setting up environmental, consumer and worker safeguards to avert the effects that were experienced in a century of turn off. (Brenner, Jessop, Jones & Macleod, 2003) Neo-liberalism has indeed produced a new social order. This is because the fundamentals of neo-liberalism begot global capitalism. In the order of neo-liberalism, individuals were given the leeway to establishing unlimited businesses and amassing as much wealth as one could. This led to the death of socialism where the resources of the country were owned by the society. Neo-liberalism contributed to market failure in the world economy. It gave birth to the property rights failure, which means that individuals who are less privileged were robbed the power and authority to protect their resources and lack of control to what happens to one’s resources and cannot prevent any other person from taking away what belongs to one. This killed free enterprise and had since resulted to a preferential treatment of those who have more while the poor are disadvantages, in this respect; neo-liberalism has created its own social order. Through neo-liberalism, a new geographical map has been created. This is evident by the increase f super powers, industrialized and developing economies. The privatization of resources has led to the general inequality across nations, where the nations with richer individuals have since risen to unprecedented heights, leaving the poor countries lagging behind. References Brenner, N, B. Jessop, M. Jones and G. Macleod. 2003. State/Space. A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Castree, N. 2007. 'Neoliberal ecologies', in N. Heynen, J. McCarthy, S. Prudham and P. Robbins , Neoliberal environments, London: Routledge. Castree, N. 2009. 'Workers, economies, geographies', in A. Herod et al. Handbook of employment and society: working space, London: Edward Elgar. Castree, N, Coe, K. Ward and M. Samers. 2004. Economic Geography. A Contemporary Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Dicken, P. 2004. Global Shift. Re-Shaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century, London: Sage. Dixon, A. 2012. 'Variegated Capitalism and the Geography of Finance: Towards a Common Agenda', Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 579-600. Harvey, D. 2001. Spaces of Capitalism. Towards a Critical Geography. Geographical Development, London: Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Jones, A.M. 2008. 'The Rise of Global Work', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 12-26. Knox, P., J. Agnew and L. McCarthy. 2008. The Geography of the World Economy. Mann, G. 2010. 'Hobbes redoubt? Toward a Geography of Monetary Policy', Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 601-25. McKinnoc, D. and A. Cumbers. 2007. 'Spaces of Production and Consumption', in An Introduction to Economic Geography. Globalization, Uneven Development and Place.London: Pearson. Springer, S. 2010. 'Neo-liberalism and Geography. Expansions, Variegations, Formations, Geography Compass, Vol. 4, No. 8, pp.1025-38. Read More