The Principles Of Debt Alleviation, Fair Trade Policies, And Economic Inequality

During the late twentieth century, nations throughout the Western Hemisphere found themselves exhausted economically due to a combination of recessions which occurred from the late sixties to the early nineteen eighties-caused most in part due to energy crises and government regulations to combat inflation (due to counteract Cold War spending). Combined with growing economic interdependence, due to the need for foreign resources needed for the sustainable growth and expansion of consumer-based manufacturing markets in the developed world-beginning post World War Two, the United States and impactful developing states sought to create regional zones of economic integration that could provide solutions to internal economic concerns of employment, growth, and governmental sustainability, as well as provide a platform for prosperity in regards to capitalism, inter-market sustainability, and geo-economic authority within the region. In order to do this, beginning in the late nineteen seventies, pro-capitalistic states, such as Chile, Mexico, and most recognizably the United States- , and different economic institutions-such as the World Bank and the IMF- pushed for a new wave of liberalism, emphasizing revamped laissez-faire policies. This resurgence of classical economic liberal ideology, which is known as neoliberalism, emphasized growth

ever enjoyed and a time of great stability, the nineteen-seventies would have a far sinister outcome, with energy turmoil, stagflation, and federal policy failures that saw the decade as “the only decade other than the 1930s wherein Americans ended up poorer than they began.” [9] The economy of the nineteen-seventies experienced difficulty for a number of reasons. One of the prime reasons was the 1973 Oil Embargo, which had a very serious effect on the American economy. Another major shift to occur was a move away from government and the public sector towards the private sector. The 1970s saw a major decline in the trust of the federal government, as many Americans turned away from the public sector and began having "an unusual faith in the market.” [10] The ‘Great Inflation’ of the 1970s would lead to widespread use of credit, as Schulman points out, “The experience of the Carter years turned many Americans, previously conservative in their financial dealings, into speculators and investors. To let savings sit in a bank in the age of inflation was to lose everything.” [11] The stagflation and energy problems to plague Carter’s administration left many increasingly more frustrated with their government, which would help give rise to the New Right. As Schulman points out, “Desperate taxpayers readily accepted the New Right critique of big government and the conservative promise of low taxes and

Neoliberalism is a direct descendent of 19th century liberalism and was explicitly intended to re-create ‘laissez-faire’ conditions for markets in the 20th century (Hayter and Barnes 200). In

In her well-informed discussion of neoliberalism, Sarah Baab discusses how neoliberalism does not affect poor countries as much as it does wealthy countries. She states, “Most global trade and foreign direct investment occur among wealthy countries, rather than between wealthy and poor nations. Wealth and power continue to have their privileges, although there is no doubt that some of these privileges have been eroded for non-elites in developed countries” (Ritzer and Atalay, 131). Baab is correct when considering the legal trade that occurs in vast amounts due to neoliberalism. Her flaw in her argument is that she fails to take into account the illegal trades that thrive due to neoliberalism, at times producing the majority of wealth for developing countries. Drug trafficking, sex trafficking, labor trafficking, and the smuggling of illegal goods occur between all countries, not just the rich and the poor. In fact, the wealthier states are making developing countries richer, and thus more powerful through their importation of goods such as illegal drugs and human beings. There is a huge risk for society associated with a country gaining its wealth through something as despicable as the trade

The term Neoliberalism was introduced around the 1990’s which was perceived to be the future for a free market economy. Essentially it originated from the idea that an economy would work more efficiently in the hands of the private sector. At the time there were many anti neoliberalism and anti-globalisation activists protesting governments against free markets fearing foreign threat in regards to the country’s factor endowments (Davies 2014, p. 309).

Then, in the second half of the 1990s, neoliberalism finally found its long-awaited success story, right in the main source of neoliberalism: the US. The US government has followed neoliberal policies, with varying consistency over time, since the second half of the Carter Administration in the late 1970s. Despite Bill Clinton’s relatively interventionist rhetoric during the

However, around the 1970’s, people began to become hostile about this government intervention and started to believe there should be a free market to minimalize government involvement (lecture). Neoliberalism marks a retreat from the liberal social democracy with focus on free trade, opposition to government regulation, refusal of responsibility for social welfare, and resource privatization (Alison Jaggar). The opposition of government regulation focuses specifically on aspects such as production of wages, working conditions, and environmental protections, while also pressing governments to abandon social welfare responsibilities (Alison Jaggar). Neoliberalism supports capitalism and the free flow of goods, resources, and people, while actively seeking to control that flow (Alison Jaggar). Neoliberalism takes advantage of inequalities between countries by increasing the gap between developing and developed nations

Neoliberalism can be best defined as a policy model that embodies free market competition. It focuses on deregulation of private activity, and production primarily for export and fiscal austerity in order to protect secure investment (Hershberg and Rosen

I have learned that the most important story of the 1970s was the recession, a period of economic stagnation. High inflation and high unemployment had monumental effects in shaping the great country, America. Moreover, oil shocks and inevitable systemic changes led to the poor economy and that weakened the support for New Deal liberalism and increased the appeal of conservative ideas. The recession in the U.S. lasted from Richard Nixon presidency to Gerald Ford presidency. Low economic growth continued even from Jimmy Carter presidency until the mid-term of Ronald Reagan’s first

Neo-liberalism is associated with economic liberalism whose campaign support provides economic liberations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation and promoting the role of private institutions present in new society. Classic liberalism criticizes the neo-liberalism objective of introducing liberalization to bring about gradual increase of wealth and freedom among nations, however, classic liberalism explains that instead of realization of wealth and freedom, liberalization resulted to constant fight proposals that threatened the progress of achieving wealth and freedom among nations. Neo-liberalism aimed to prevent and control monopoly situations such that if there are no bodies

Where separate nations, people groups, and political systems exist, many differing economic policies and ideas exist as well. All of the world economic ideologies consist of different focuses, morals, and processes of creating the ideal economic system. Each ideology uses different methods and ideas that conflict with the others, but these ideas can also overlap and be consistent in many areas. Four major economic ideologies are neoliberalism, Evangelical internationalism, and Alternative globalization. Each of these ideologies has many differences and contradictions with one another, and yet according to critics on both sides, they each have their flaws as well. Whereas the idea of neoliberalism is based on privatization, free market,

The neoliberal policies are imposed as the recovery of underdevelopment in the developing countries by western nations and international financial organizations as a part of aid conditionality (Bank 2002; Kotz 2008). The income inequality is increasing mostly in the developing countries after adjusting the neoliberal policies (Meeropol 2004). Therefore, besides the benefits for few developing countries such as East Asian Tigers and China, the extent of poverty and inequality has increased in most of the developing countries by imposing

Following the depression of the 1930s, development of labour unions, workers’ rights, creation of a welfare state, and liberation from corporation control spelled a period of economic growth and prosperity in capitalist history (Harvey, 2007). Keynesian orthodoxy 1945 to late 1970s, consensus politically was built upon a social-democratic welfare state, steady employment unified social responsibility, a period of rehabilitation. Criminal justice systems did not incite or enfeeble ideological confrontation amongst the governmental parties (Downes and Morgan, 1997). The power of ideas associated with Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman emerged during the 1930s yet did not receive widespread support, the ideology and foundation of Neoliberalism

The rise of globalization following WWII generated three important factors that define today’s world. McNeill and McNeill agree with Pollard, Rosenberg, and Tignor that multiple economic changes, such as the creation of financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) contributed to the globalization of the world economy. Carter and Warren further this argument by claiming that globalization has caused shifts in the modern economy, namely the rise of Asian economic powers. However, all three historians agree that the rise of globalization goes hand in hand with the rise of inequality in today’s world. Gaps in power, wealth, and access to information have only widened due to the trend of globalization. The final key factor defining our world today are the ongoing processes affecting development countries. McNeill and McNeill argue similarly to Carter and Warren that the end of imperialism generated new nations who quickly realized the free market was a pathway to stability. However, Pollard et al. and McNeill and McNeill place importance on financial institutions like the IMF forcing developing nations to reform their economies to be subservient to the world’s economy. Together, these historians argue that the trend of globalization following WWII caused factors like the modern global economy, the rise in inequality, and the development of new, decolonized nations to be key determiners in the world today.

Several developing countries are sunk in debt and poverty because of the arrangements of global establishments, for example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Their projects have been vigorously reprimanded for a long time and have been constantly blamed for poverty. Moreover, developing countries have been in constant expanded reliance on the wealthier countries, despite the IMF and World Bank's claim that their main goal is to fight poverty (Shah, 2013). During recent decades, the poorest nations on the planet have needed to swing progressively to the World Bank and IMF for money related help, because their impoverishment has made it unthinkable for them to acquire somewhere else. The World Bank and IMF connect strict