I didn't mean to suggest that Singapore was neoliberal in the classic sense,
though I'd absolutely defend the suggestion that post-coup Chile was.
If we define neoliberalism as simply being the execution of monetarism &
laissez-fairism, there have been, perhaps, one or two short lived neoliberal
states. If we think of neoliberalism as being the prioritisation of the
private over the public, the reification of market processes, the return to
the primacy of capital, and so on, it allows us to understand - and
problematise - the last thirty years of political economy. Throw into this
mix the difference between discursive/ ideological representations of the
economy and the underlying economic conditions (state spending under
Thatcher grew, even as they talked of withering it).
It may be that the language here becomes a problem (and as I re-read Jon's
description of the state of Singapore the word Berlusconi kept flashing into
my head), but I can't think of any better
Adam Tickell
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:08:42 +0000
From: Jon Cloke <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Global inequality and Singapore
There's really no more truth in the idea that Singapore 'adopted'=20
neo-liberal policies in the 1980s than there is that Chile was the poster=
=20
child for the Chicago Boys in the 1970s (see Sherman Souter's excellent 1=
998=20
essay on the adoption and rapid abandonment of laissez-faire economics by=
=20
the post-coup regime).
Singapore developed what is effectively a capitalist command economy duri=
ng=20
the 1960s and 1970s under the steely grip of Lee Kuan Yew, accompanied by=
an=20
extraordinary programme of social engineering. Whilst it is absolutely tr=
ue=20
that Singapore had effectively no choice but to follow an export-orientat=
ed=20
growth model this certainly didn't follow any kind of a free market model=
,=20
if not a tightly-controlled state-directed programme of investment and=20
expansion along the lines of the Japanese one.
As Singapore has grown wealthier the state and ruling commercial elites h=
ave=20
if anything strengthened their grip on the economy and the political syst=
em,=20
effectively controlling the judiciary and legislature, not to mention the=
=20
media, and reducing any political opposition to powerlessness; that this =
is=20
all immensely popular with your average Singaporean doesn't make it any l=
ess=20
of an oligopoly.
Add to this the political economy context of Singapore's strategic=20
importance during the 1960s and 1970s during the Cold War (along with=20
Taiwan, South Korea) and its' consequent ability to capitalise both on th=
at=20
and the vast amounts of capital and mat=E9riel that flowed into South-Eas=
t=20
Asia as a result of the Korean and Vietnam wars (see Bello and Rosenfeld=20
(1992) Dragons in Distress) and what you have is the successful developme=
nt=20
of a highly technologised, advanced economy in conditions that were about=
as=20
far from being free market-driven as possible whilst still being capitali=
st.
Cheers!
Jon Cloke
|