IMF Part 1: Research Proposal

You can read part 2 here
You can read part 3 here

The purpose of this paper is to outline the initial details of a research project, focused on the neo-liberal policies outlined in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine (2008) as Chicago School disaster capitalism, specifically as exemplified by occurrences in Latin America during the 1970s. Briefly, Klein posits that disaster capitalism, then during its infancy, saw a small group of powerful elites imposing unpopular economic reforms (namely deregulation, privatization, and government cutbacks) during times of crisis (such as armed conflict, political coups, or during violent oppression by military juntas) for the benefit of transnational corporations (TNCs). This issue has been chosen because of its close ties with globalization, outlined below, and the often devastating impact these policies have had on both national economies and cultures, as well as the heightening effect on the global North/South divide. This is important to explore both for the sake of those victimized by the policies of a few, but also to underline the need for global governance, finance, and other institutions to include rigorous democratic checks and balances on abuses of power, conditions which are at present glaringly absent.
[continued after the jump, or click on title to view full article]


In order to distinguish globalization as itself a unique process, it should be understood to mean the spread of transplanetary, and especially supraterritorial, connections (Scholte, 2005). It is possible to link disaster capitalism to globalization in a number of ways. Disaster capitalism relates to internationalization, in that it involves the interactions and exchanges between states. This leads to liberalization, in that the reforms imposed by the Chicago School group include the imposition of open and free trade regimes for moving goods between states. These reforms are representative of universalization, in that they are a standard prescription of reforms, based on a single economic model, regardless of the local situational factors, suggesting a global standardization as their goal. This model is representative of westernization, in that it forces a Western (and more specifically US) designed model onto the world at large, one based on modernist notions of corporate capitalism, free trade, and individualism. However, even taken together, these factors alone do not amount to globalization, but merely set the stage for a deeper understanding of the links between globalization processes and disaster capitalism.
All the above factors support the link between disaster capitalism and globalization, but to truly elucidate the connection, it needs to be shown how transplanetary and supraterritorial connections relate to Klein's observations. One of the most important ways is that, as people of all nations come to see themselves as global citizens, their shared sense of interconnectedness grows. It is due to this that the potential to stop and reverse the devastating policies of disaster capitalism is increasing exponentially; it is no longer possible to view the abuses as happening to some other nation, or some other peoples, in the face of the notion that humans are one nation, and one people. More concretely, the disaster capitalism trend is linked to both the transworld simultaneity and instantaneity (Scholte, 2005) of global production chains and markets, and the global reach of TNCs hungry for deregulation and privatization. Disaster capitalism also relies on the fear transmitted by the global media (Klein, 2008), beaming images of crisis to everyone, everywhere, in no time, or simply posting them to supraterritorial space on the internet (Scholte, 2005). In a feedback loop, each time the policies are implemented they are both driven by, and drive further, a particular version of globalization, one that can only be stopped by transworld citizenry acting together from a collective conscience.
Many theorists have heralded the end of the supremacy of the state as a result of globalization, typically by pointing to a decline in sovereignty as proof. In this way, disaster capitalism is both chilling and relevant, for it is an absolute expression of the decline of sovereignty. While some would point to the fact that the policy choices taken by various state governments represent the height of sovereignty, this is naive ignorance of the external pressures constraining state actions and the interference which follows. Whether peddled by the Chicago School economists (as in Latin America during the 1970s) as the only solution for crashing economies, or more recently by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as conditions for badly needed loans, disaster capitalism's neo-liberal policies are a bitter pill forced down the throat of a nation against its will. They have often crippling effects on economies, leading to untold suffering for the citizenry unlucky enough to experience the effects, which can in cases last for years, decades, or indefinitely (Klein, 2008). While initial forays into the experiment of disaster capitalism were clumsy and somewhat ineffectual, as was the case in Chile where the three main tenets were implemented incompletely and haphazardly (ibid.), the process has since become institutionalized and streamlined, so that each successive case, from Russia to Iraq, has been ever more insidious and shattering.
When relating this issue to the various levels of government involved, it becomes clear that supranational or global governance bodies, such as the IMF and other Bretton Woods actors, bear much of the responsibility for the negative outcomes experienced. However, the impacts are felt at the community, individual, and national levels, and it is from there that resistance must be mounted. Under the current model, states are often forced to accept neo-liberal terms in order to secure loans or refinance debt. However, as exemplified by Malaysia's refusal of IMF 'assistance' during the Asian financial crisis (Scholte, 2005), it is both possible and advisable to look for alternatives wherever possible, and this can be supported via active participation from individuals. There is a risk, however, that states refusing to sign up to these policies can find themselves marginalized, as was the case with Haiti, and this illustrates the need for all global citizens to engage in dismantling this policy regime, whether located in a state of the global North or South.
Having discussed the issue of interest and its ties to the process of globalization and its relationship to the state, it is important to set out a clear research question for future investigations. Based on the close relationship between the neo-liberal policies and globalization, and also on the lack of citizen input in these often devastating policies, future research should examine how global citizens, civil society, non governmental organizations (NGOs) and strengthened participatory democracy can combine to challenge the supremacy of the disaster capitalist ideology.

References
Klein, N. (2008). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Toronto: Random House.
Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Related articles by Zemanta

• No Shock Doctrine for Haiti (leftfootforward.org)
• Terence Corcoran: Haiti, Chile and the Shock Doctrine (network.nationalpost.com)
• Naomi Klein: Haiti: Small Victory for Shock Resistance (huffingtonpost.com)