Globalization, Depoliticization and ‘Modern’ Economic Management

Abstract

Bourgeois social science, it has often been remarked, is a real 'dedicated follower of fashion' (Horkheimer, [1937] 1976). It should come as no surprise therefore that when the works of Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard began to weave their spell in the early 1980s the 'new paradigm' began to celebrate 'difference', 'novelty', 'particularity' and the micropolitics of subjectivism and empowerment.1 Whatever the post-structuralist 'reading' the relativist message was clear: the metanarratives of modernism (especially Marxism) were to be rejected. The discovery by social science of 'globalization' in the 1990s appeared to reintroduce a grand metanarrative: the inexorable march of free markets 'battering down all Chinese walls'. However it soon became clear that in the hands of `paradigm shifters' the phenomenon of 'globalization' was absolutely compatible with post-modernist ideology: in fact, it complemented perfectly Foucauldian discourse 'theory'. Not only were early assessments of 'globalization as one logic' considered flawed but it was now claimed that 'globalization' was a process with many logics, consistent even with 'regionalism' and decentralization. Above all, 'globalization' signalled the demise of that great modernist symbol of totalizing power: the nation state.KeywordsPolitical EconomyMonetary PolicyFiscal PolicyFull EmploymentDispute SettlementThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.