Neoliberalism and the countermovement

Résumé du document

Karl Paul Polanyi (1886-1964) was an Austro-hungarian economist, sociologist and historian. An academic and journalist by trade, he was forced to emigrate from Vienna, first to the United Kingdom and Canada, then to the United States in the late 1930s.

Extraits

[...] Modern capitalism sought to establish a clear separation between the two spheres, and based the predominance of economic activities by putting forward private egoism as its defining motive. The double movement is mentioned by Marx by stating that the individual acts in a similar manner whether in the economic or political sphere. Conclusions Both articles rely heavily on Polanyi's book to establish the parallels between the 2008-2009 crisis, and the 1929 crash that sent the United States and Europe to war a decade later. [...]

[...] Polanyi opposes this view through the concept of embeddedness, which paradoxically calls for saving capitalism from itself. Furthermore, the crisis was also exacerbated by the preeminence given not only to the economic sphere, but to a certain organisation advocated by its financial component. Polanyi warns against a setup where the whole society is subordinate to its economic activity, and writes: "Ultimately that is why the control of the economic system by the market is of overwhelming consequence to the whole organization of society: it means no less than the running of society as an adjunct to the market". [...]

[...] Interpretations The two papers exhibit a common theme in renewing the debate between Polanyi's embeddedness, which he defines as " . the idea that the economy is not autonomous, as it must be in economic theory, but subordinated to politics, religion and social relations.", and the neo-liberal approach. The elements in both papers refer to the 1920-era debates between Polanyi and his contemporaries such as Ludwig Von Mises and his disciple, Friedrich Hayek. That debate stems from two fundamentally different explanations offered for the state of politics in Europe during the 1930s. [...]

[...] In both instances, the authors conclude to the relevance of Polanyi's analysis, although Özgur & Özel temper their conclusions with the expressed need to update it with the recent body of literature on the subject. Finally, both papers appear to eschew any forward-looking conclusion as to how Polanyi's thoughts can be applied in a bid to forestall the next systemic crisis. This is a significant limitation as to the relevance of their respective conclusions, but also as to how society as a whole can grow out of its current depression, and ensure it does not happen again. [...]

[...] ] succeeded in bridging the gap between restricted medieval property rights and modern individual property without sacrificing [ . ]constitutional liberty." the most basic of economic rights is at the centre of a power struggle between political agents. In addition, other aspects of economic activities were intensely regulated by economic agents themselves; the role of professional guilds was key to the development of trading hubs around Europe, just as they were a pushback force against innovation they perceived as threatening their livelihoods and status. [...]