Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Is a New Economic Consensus Emerging from the Ashes of the Old?

By Walden Bello, Foreign Policy in Focus. Posted January 13, 2009.


The swift unraveling of the global economy has left the world anticipating a new era of social democracy.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Walden Bello

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Not surprisingly, the swift unraveling of the global economy combined with the ascent to the U.S. presidency of an African-American liberal has left millions anticipating that the world is on the threshold of a new era. Some of President-elect Barack Obama's new appointees -- in particular ex-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to lead the National Economic Council, New York Federal Reserve Board chief Tim Geithner to head Treasury, and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk to serve as trade representative -- have certainly elicited some skepticism. But the sense that the old neoliberal formulas are thoroughly discredited have convinced many that the new Democratic leadership in the world's biggest economy will break with the market fundamentalist policies that have reigned since the early 1980s.

One important question, of course, is how decisive and definitive the break with neoliberalism will be. Other questions, however, go to the heart of capitalism itself. Will government ownership, intervention, and control be exercised simply to stabilize capitalism, after which control will be given back to the corporate elites? Are we going to see a second round of Keynesian capitalism, where the state and corporate elites along with labor work out a partnership based on industrial policy, growth, and high wages -- though with a green dimension this time around? Or will we witness the beginnings of fundamental shifts in the ownership and control of the economy in a more popular direction? There are limits to reform in the system of global capitalism, but at no other time in the last half century have those limits seemed more fluid.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has already staked out one position. Declaring that "laissez-faire capitalism is dead," he has created a strategic investment fund of 20 billion euros to promote technological innovation, keep advanced industries in French hands, and save jobs. "The day we don't build trains, airplanes, automobiles, and ships, what will be left of the French economy?" he recently asked rhetorically. "Memories. I will not make France a simple tourist reserve." This kind of aggressive industrial policy aimed partly at winning over the country's traditional white working class can go hand-in-hand with the exclusionary anti-immigrant policies with which the French president has been associated.

Global Social Democracy

A new national Keynesianism along Sarkozyan lines, however, is not the only alternative available to global elites. Given the need for global legitimacy to promote their interests in a world where the balance of power is shifting towards the South, western elites might find more attractive an offshoot of European Social Democracy and New Deal liberalism that one might call "Global Social Democracy" or GSD.

Even before the full unfolding of the financial crisis, partisans of GSD had already been positioning it as alternative to neoliberal globalization in response to the stresses and strains being provoked by the latter. One personality associated with it is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who led the European response to the financial meltdown via the partial nationalization of the banks. Widely regarded as the godfather of the "Make Poverty History" campaign in the United Kingdom, Brown, while he was still the British chancellor, proposed what he called an "alliance capitalism" between market and state institutions that would reproduce at the global stage what he said Franklin Roosevelt did for the national economy: "securing the benefits of the market while taming its excesses." This must be a system, continued Brown, that "captures the full benefits of global markets and capital flows, minimizes the risk of disruption, maximizes opportunity for all, and lifts up the most vulnerable -- in short, the restoration in the international economy of public purpose and high ideals."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: capitalism, neoliberalism, economy, progressives, social democracy, new deal, global financial crisis

Walden Bello is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus, a senior analyst at the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South, president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, and a professor of sociology at the University of the Philippines.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A good summary of where we are at this time
Posted by: PaulC on Jan 13, 2009 10:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is key to emphasize that globalization is currently nothing more than the corporate search for exploitable labor, natural resources and markets, with the result being an undermining of the rule of law across all lines of jurisdiction.

Absent a global level of governance and regulation there is no way that globalization can work because corporations will always have an advantage over governments insofar as the former are global in reach while governments by definition are not.

But who would compete against such a global government to keep it in check? The Martians? The Klingon Empire?

And would a global body not more closely conform to the interests of the equally globally oriented corporations than to those of regionalized nation states?

Why do we assume that any entities that human endeavor can create are necessarily good things? The simple fact is that corporations are diametrically opposed to the rule of law and will ultimately destroy what we think of now as mankind.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Junk
Posted by: mike_burns on Jan 14, 2009 12:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Junk globalization. It is just a way for multinational corporations and the international banking industry to keep everyone in wage slavery. Let's put some makeup on what we have been doing that got the world into a mess. Let's repackage it and we can resell it.
I didn't buy it in the past, and I won't buy it no matter how they dress it up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3 more pages, please.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 15, 2009 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need counterproposals,or at least places to look for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need
Posted by: JSquercia on Jan 15, 2009 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has already staked out one position. Declaring that "laissez-faire capitalism is dead," he has created a strategic investment fund of 20 billion euros to promote technological innovation, keep advanced industries in French hands, and save jobs. "The day we don't build trains, airplanes, automobiles, and ships, what will be left of the French economy?" he recently asked rhetorically.
I think he got it right .We have to return to an Economy where we make THINGS real tangible , touchable stuuf NOT the repackaging of Debt in Ephemeral intruments by paper shufflers . We were once the engine of democracy and the Arsenal of the ALLIES during WWII . We should look to idea of recreating those manufacturing jobs we have shipped overseas . That may mean the imposition of tarrifs to shelter the recreation of Industries . Korea did this and protected Hyndai and Samsung allowing them to become what they are today

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]