NEOLIBERALISM AND THE ASCENDANCY OF THE MARKET-BASED MODES OF GOVERNANCE

Abstract

The article aims to investigate the influence of current neoliberal theory and policies on restructuring the European model of welfare state and analyses of different types of neoliberal policies both in terms of concrete actions and types of discourse through which are underlined the supposed benefits of the de-regulation model of the European state and its replacement with one based on the supremacy of market mechanisms. Particularly, the analysis focuses on the "narrative" discourse of de-regulation, privatization and social austerity that had been used to justify the abandonment of policies specific to welfare state and the full introduction of mechanisms of free market including on the labour market by dropping the "safety net" for the labour force from The European states.

Headnote

Abstract: The article aims to investigate the influence of current neoliberal theory and policies on restructuring the European model of welfare state and analyses of different types of neoliberal policies both in terms of concrete actions and types of discourse through which are underlined the supposed benefits of the de-regulation model of the European state and its replacement with one based on the supremacy of market mechanisms. Particularly, the analysis focuses on the "narrative" discourse of de-regulation, privatization and social austerity that had been used to justify the abandonment of policies specific to welfare state and the full introduction of mechanisms of free market including on the labour market by dropping the "safety net" for the labour force from The European states.

Keywords: neoliberalism, welfare state, de-regulation, crisis, market fundamentalism

"To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment...would result in the demolition of society".

Karl Polany, The Great Transformation, Beacon Press, 1944

More than 50 years ago, the European economy was divided and "balcanized" into closed national economies and was separated by a gap set by the Iron Curtain, while the contemporary Europe has been more and more integrated. Together with the collapse of the soviet block, the separation between the East and the West disappeared and the counties of Central and Eastern Europe have been gradually incorporated into the Western European economy being encouraged to emulate the economic systems of the West. Fifty years ago, Western governments developed national economic strategies that they implemented by directing the flows of capitals and they based their macroeconomic governance on close cooperation with the unions and the business within capitalist economic systems of the mixed economy, market social economy and welfare state type. In the modern world, the market "escaped" the "constraints" which had been imposed on of Keynesian type and the result has been the social partnership between the government, unions and the business. In this "new " world of unleashed capitalism, the governments have limited options and means through which they can control the effects resulting from the functioning of unlimited market mechanisms. In Europe, on the one hand, the governments adopted more and more "friendly" market policies, and, on the other hand, they transferred additional powers to the European Union hoping that this way by shortcutting the national state, they will be able to recover, at least, a moderate control over the unfolding of the economic and social events on the continent. Nevertheless, if from this perspective, modern Europe is radically different from that of 50 years ago, from the tripartite perspective (government-unions-business)of the institutional and welfare state, with deep values of western Christian and social democracy, a remarkable continuation could be observed through the fact that these social networks are difficult to change. But at the same time, these institutions, ideal in a period of extensive economic growth, must be adapted to a new post-crisis age. In political economy, as in the physical one, any action provokes a reaction. Globalization and the huge impact of impersonal global markets on the European model of society have had a wave of reactions coming from European politicians that have been worried by the "invasion of global financial locusts" that suck the blood of the European society. Moreover, the extension of the European Union's bureaucracy has provoked an extremely negative reaction of all the actors that felt that their autonomy has been threatened, while the optimism on the innovative ability of Europe left space for scepticism regarding the ability of the competent to compete with the United States in the development of new technologies1.

In the last decades, neoliberalism has been one of the most important forces that contributed to redrawing global architecture of the economy and starting with 2007, the huge impact of neoliberalism on the European model has intensified together with the entrance into the Great Recession that created new opportunities for the promoters of the Anglo-American economic and social model. As the growth of production and productivity has been higher in the United States than in Europe, at least, in the last decade, the perception according to which this tendency will remain leaving the European economy behind the United States has created a crisis of the European model in the view of many experts and it will force Europe redesign its social and economic institutions by adopting the Anglo-Saxon model. On the other hand, in terms of relatively recent economic history, the abandoning of the European model and adopting the Anglo-Saxon one could be questioned, as in the 19080s, for instance, there were popular the views that Japan whose economy was in full development and was conquering one market after another would overcome the United States, which, in order to face competition, should have to rebuild its institutions following the Japanese model. Also, in the first half of the 1990s, when productivity grew more rapidly in Europe, the arguments were that the United States should rearrange its economy using the European model by abandoning the absolutization of the free market mechanism, and by focusing primarily on industrial and vocational education policies. Currently, we know that both examples of "envy" of the systems are not in fashion and are not current and Barry Eischengreen observed, it is obvious: "for anyone encountering forceful statements of American triumphalism and Eurosclerosis, history is a reminder that this too shall pass"2.

The process of integration of the European Union has become in the last quarter more and more dominated by an economic discourse inspirited by the neoliberalism that focuses on mainly on economic growth. The economic restructuring of the European Union started with the launch of the Common Market Program in 1985, a project that provided the liberalization and deregulation of national markets as a part of the process of generalization of free movement of goods, services, capital and people. This direction was even more stated by the adoption of the Economic and Monetary Union (Economic and Monetary Union / EMU) that introduced convergence criteria that included the compulsory maintaining in case of member states of a low level of national debt and budget deficit sunder the agreed level in Europe, simultaneously with the restating of the independence of the Central European Bank, the main goal of which at that time was the stability of prices that was favoured to other objectives. Later, the Lisbon Strategy continued these tendencies and focused most entirely on the market3. Even though, the so-called social dimension of the European Union differentiates it from the American economic and political model, the introduction of these measures can be seen as part of the "market-building" process4 using the American model or in Bastiaan van Apeldorn's terms, at least, "the compromise of embedded neoliberalism"5. Promoted by the transnational European and global capital, this compromise took the shape of the New Political Economy characterized by the neoliberalism of American influence but also including a set of concessions regarding European industrial and social policies in order to extend the support base beyond transnational capital6.

The neoliberalism is a separate political economy theory having at its core the idea that "human well-being can be best advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade"7. Based on monetarist theory and research of Milton Friedman, this theory focuses on maintaining macroeconomic stability through opposition with the goals of Keynesian policies of employment and reduction of poverty. Political philosophy underlying modern neoliberalism is based on criticism of state interventionism initiated by Friedrich von Hayek8 (1944) and states that the only legitimate role of the state is to ensure safety and freedom of the individual to do business and protect firmly the property right. In other words, it promotes a rolling back the stateand the creation of a society governed totally on market mechanisms. But, even though, traditionally, the market is defined through the absence of state intervention, it is known that markets are not natural phenomena that appear inevitably but as shown by the entire economic history of capitalism, these must be "created" / invented, directed and secured. From this perspective, the neoliberalism contains in its core a self-contradicting theory given that the laissez-faire type of policies cannot and could never be introduced in the absence of the state. Therefore, the neoliberal mantra of "less state" is illusory, as neoliberalism leads to, at least in the initial stages and not necessarily in the open interventionist forms promoted by other political economy theories to increase of state intervention into economy and not to diminishing of its role9.

In the past 25 years, together with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the former soviet bloc, the principles of marketization, privatisation and de-regulation have been extended to the Northern countries and the Global South. Originating in political and economic projects of the Thatcher-Reagan age, this type of statecraft has been refined and completed towards qualitative rearrangement of relationships between the state and economy through varied repertoire, may times experimental, of economic and social policies. Even though it always promotes market-oriented policies, the neoliberalism is neither a homogenous or unified theory, having different versions, each of them resulting from the interpretation of the main idea that market mechanisms din are the best way to organise all exchange operations of products and goods. Starting from the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, there has been a global diffusion of market-based governing methods and the polices inspired by neoliberalism have begun gradually to be adopted by parties being in totally different political areas, having as a consequence that the support and adhesion methods have been disparated, fragmented and took different forms. The neoliberal approach to political economy has changed over time, the general attitude to welfare state has shifted from a general consensus on the existence of safety net for individuals with no or low income to a more punitive perspective that focuses on self-sufficiency and social Darwinismon the labour market. Even though the impact of neoliberal thinking has been huge, there still exist key regulations in the European Union that operate on national labour markets that suggests the fact that: "unevenness in the neoliberal project, which abnegates any suggestion of neoliberalism as a universal, totalizing and inevitable process"10.

The modern neoliberalism is a new stage of capitalism that appeared as a result of structural crisis of the 1970s and it has numerous versions that proved to be extremely adaptable to specific economic and social contexts. Gerard Dumeniland Dominique Levy believe that modern neoliberalism is the expression of a strategy of capitalist classes allied with top management, especially in finance, whose goal is to strengthen their own hegemony and global expansion. Before the Big Contraction of 2007, this strategy seemed to be successful, ensuring the attainment of its main goals, namely, the continuous growth of income of a privileged and rich minority dominating the global economy in general and, specifically, a set of important countries of the Global North. But, add the two cited authors, the global economic crisis has been the consequences of inherent contradictions of these strategies which denotes a true "crisis of neoliberalism"11.

Modern neoliberalism has at its core the "economist" vision of the world, the doctrine viewing globalization as an essentially an economic process, something that is linked to production, exchange and consumption of resources. Therefore, neoliberal policies rely mainly on economic analyses and the cultural, environmental, geographical, political psychological aspects are generally viewed as less secondary deriving also from the economic ones and this only if they are at least considered. The neoliberal theory has always had the tendency to treat economic issues in isolation to other social dimensions and, especially, the doctrine starts from the assumption that economic policies that favour globalization are an issue of technical expertise being neutral from a political and cultural point of view. Therefore, the neoliberal doctrine is universal being applied globally and the economic policies inspired by it always recommend that the intensification of global economic relations should require a laissez-faire type of approach, privatization, liberalization and de-regulation. In general, related to neoliberal project of globalization took the form of economic history research analysing gradual evolution of the new post-war economy after the Bretton Woods Convention of 1944. In the post-war period, under the pressure of the United States, big world economic powers decided to reverse the protectionist policies that dominated the post-war period and engaged in the process of expansion of international trade. Main results of the Bretton Woods Conference include limited liberalization of international trade, setting rules of international business and creating a stable international monetary system, in which to the value of each national currency was linked to a fixed value in gold of American dollar. Within these pre-established limitations, each nation was free to control "the permeability" of its national borders that allowed them to set their own national economic agendas. Also, the Bretton Woods Conference set the foundation of the three international economic institutions: the International Monetary Fund put in charge with the administration of the international monetary system; the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, initially aimed to provide loans for post-war reconstruction of Europe and later in the 1950s, its role had been extended to financing various industrial projects in the developing countries; the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade became in 1947 the main global trade organization whose aim was to eliminate free trade barriers; founded in 1995, The World Trade Organization became the successor of GATT12. For almost three decades, the Bretton Woods system contribute largely to the instauration of what Edward Luttwak called "the Golden Age of Controlled Capitalism"13, a period characterised by the existence of a control mechanism of national states on international flow of capital, it made possible almost full employment, the expansion of welfare state and a provision of extended social services in the context characterized by increase of salaries and income, it contributed to the establishment in the Global North of a temporary compromise between social classes.

In the 1990s, both philosophical foundations and economic policies of neoliberalism were in the midst of intense ideological debates, the controversies on the "real" effects of globalization have continued up to now. Most economic globalization research believes that the acceleration of integrationist tendencies of world economy took place at the beginning of the 1970s on the background of the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. In 1971, as an answer to deep changes in world economy that undermined the competitiveness of industries based in the United States, the American President, Richard Nixon decided to abandon the international monetary system on gold-dollar fixed rates. Later, the combination between new political ideas and economic developments - high inflation, slow economic growth, high unemployment, public deficits, two oil shocks in 1973 and 1979 - led to spectacular victories in elections of conservative parties in the United States and the United Kingdom. The American republicans and British conservatives gave a decisive impulse to the neoliberal movement of international markets expansion, together with simultaneous de-regulation of national financial systems, gradual elimination of capital flows control and promotion of the growth international financial transactions. In the following three decades, neoliberal economic and political ideas rapidly spread from their original Anglo-American core to the rest of the world, this dynamics of dissemination being largely facilitated by independent and mimetic behaviour of national states being under the influence of the core14.Throughout the 1980sand 1990s, the neoliberal efforts to create a common global market were intensified and favoured by a set of major agreements of free trade liberalization that had as an effect the increase of cross-border flows of economic resources. Moreover, being for more than a decade in full development, it gained additional legitimacy together with the collapse of planned economies in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union in 1989 and 1991.

The post-war economic consensus on Keynesian principles have been replaced in the last decades with theories of free market based on works of Friedrich von Hayek'15 and Milton Friedman16, who became the founders of the new economic orthodoxy promoting the reduction of the role of welfare state, the government and de-regulation of economy. The focus on monetarist measures of fighting inflation led to the abandonment of Keynesian goal of full employment for the creation of more "flexible" labour markets. At the same time, dramatic change of the world, from the one dominated by the state to a world dominated by the market has been accompanied by the technological innovations that led to massive decrease of transport and communication costs and it triggered international trade whose amount increased, for instance, from 57 billion dollars in 1947 to over 6 trillion dollars in the 1990s17. In addition, along with the revigoration of international trade, there are two other key aspects of economic globalization that are related to changing nature of production processes and liberalization and internationalization of global financial transactions and this made a lot of analysts believe that the appearance of transnational financial systems is the main feature of current global capitalism. Key elements of this system are de-regulation of interest rates, elimination or, at least, reduction of control in lending and the privatisation of banks and financial institutions held by the state. The process of financial globalisation has been dramatically accelerated at the end of the 1980s together with the de-regulation of "capital and securities" markets in Europe and the United States; this allowed a higher mobility among different segments of the financial sector in a context with highly reduced restrictions and global business investment opportunities. Moreover, innovations and positive developments in data processing and technology contributed to explosive growth of global financial flows, liberalization of transnational transactions being even more accelerated together with the appearance of a real global nervous system based on new satellites and the Internet18. As a result, millions of individual investors use global electronic networks not only to profit from investment opportunities but also find out valuable economic information about relevant economic and political developments in a world where individuals run business in an extremely rapid pace, almost at a speed of thought. (business@the-speed-of-thought)19. In the first years of the 21st century, businesses in the virtual reality, of the e-business, dot-com type and other businesses involving virtual participants in an economy based on information technology have traded almost half a trillion dollars on the web only in the United States.20.

Nevertheless, a main part of traded money involved in the expansion of markets are not allotted for supplementing the capital for productive investments, not being invested in increasing production capacities, raw materials or employment in order to produce goods and services. The main part of the volume of growth of these markets is due to purely money dealing, currency and security markets speculative transactions meant for future profit making. Speculators and global dealers gain being helped by new communication technologies and spectacular income getting advantage of less regulation in the financial and banking sectors, especially in the emerging and developing markets. In the context in which capital flows can be easily reversed, these could create artificial cycles of the "boom and burst" type that threaten the welfare of an entire region. Economic disasters of this type have been the economic crisis in South-East Asia between 1997-1998, created by unregulated speculative flows of capital and crises in Russia in 1998, Brazil (1999) and Argentinain 2000-2003. But, the crisis that started as "the subprime loan crash" in August 2007 in the United States will remain a turning point in the history of capitalism, provided that right from the beginning the financial collapse took unexpected size and later the shock weakened a fragile financial system that had been built in earlier decades in a way that it destabilized the whole real economy, and, therefore, staring with September 2008, it became obvious the capitalist system enters into a deep and persistent crisis, the New Contraction reminding the Great Depression of 1929-1939.The Great Contraction of the current capitalist system imposes the revision of regulation structure of economic, legal and political systems worldwide. At the European Union level, apart from issues generated by globalization of markets, issues of energetic security, free movement of people and uncertain future of the welfare state as a specific model, of the continent, it has been the greatest challenge that it should cope with from its foundation up to now. Therefore, in the near future, the meaningful discussions on the future structure of the European Union will be difficult to avoid.

Globalization is mainly a political process of convergence21 ("a political process of convergence"), and its core elements are more and more obvious in the neoliberal discourse and practice and in the attempts to restructure political institutions and practical steps of the competitive state. The economic dimension of globalization is the necessary condition but it is not enough to create changes in one or another direction and, moreover, it creates a situation of multiple equilibrium from which political, economic, social systems or other alternatives could evolve. Nevertheless, within this diversity, contemporary neoliberalism not only became a hegemony but also became a brutal orthodox version of the market in the 1980s in its attempts to innovate some formulas of redefining the relationship between the state and the market under the name of "social-liberalism" in the 21st century. The majority of discussions related to globalization are centered on global economic changes worldwide that include: globalization of financial markets; expansion of global trade that is more rapid than the growth of production; internationalization of production chains, especially due to multinational corporations operations; expansion of direct foreign and portfolio; new technology development that creates direct links with transnational communication and information networks; higher visibility of international regimes tendencies and the so-called "global governance" (global governance) to solve dislocations generated by globalization by promoting "structural adjustments "in economic terms and the implementation of which takes into account purely economic tendencies. In this context, political institutions, actors and regional, national and sub-national processes were constrained by these economic tendencies to adopt convergent trajectories to conform with neoliberal economic policies.

From a general perspective, economic policies promoted by modern neoliberalism include the "freeing" of markets, limiting the role of the state in industrial policies and reducing the welfare state (the assistance state in the neoliberal terminology), privatization, financial orthodoxy and the fight against inflation, and also, a change of control on the government by its own voters towards different less formal transnational governance methods that offer to big competing transnational corporations a privileged position that should allow them to exert a high influence on national institutions, inter-state economic processes and on the role of state in that nation. In this context, even though the economic constraints and different contextual opportunities can make national political actors adopt different paths towards privatization and operate in a largely divergent range of choices in order to run and shape the change in accordance with neoliberal policies, all these belong to globalization. Therefore, although there is some space for action for the national governments, the trajectory is irreversible in the context where the return to a world whose main actors should be abstract sovereign national states, able to adown their own national economic and social models depending on their own integrating conceptions related to social justice, natural hierarchies, social corporatist agreements, eternal values and so on. Specifically, economic crises and the collapse by them undermine ideas according to which national sovereignty creates political stability, democratization and wealth. International economic interdependence determined the abandonment to a certain degree of indigenous national economic development strategies and the priorities of the welfare state, in favour of policies promoted by the "modernising" elites of integrating into a post-Fordist world, more "open" and "flexible". In this context, the state is not just "withdrawn", but from many perspectives, it continues to develop and exercise its authority22. What is different is the fact that the way it exercises its authority is changing, instead of giving priority to allocating benefits by the welfare state policies, instead of supporting and holding property of strategic national industries and infrastructure services, instead of having as its main objective full employment in Keynesian sense and redistributing resources among individuals and social groups, it is more and more a competition state.23.

Therefore, while this process of change is from many perspectives a challenge for the nation-state as it developed in the 19th and 20th centuries, in sense that it causes a withdrawal and/or diminishing of its role on many levels, on the other hand, it could contribute to significant expansion of and strengthening of power and old resources and/ or a new involvement of the state by substitution of regulation by redistribution, the focus being on attracting foreign capital and not on its discouraging, on privatisation and marketing of economic and social operations and by adopting and introducing new cross-border institutions and practices. This type of change is "not monolithic but often fragmenting, pluralizing, and experimental - necessarily driven by short-term as well as medium - and long-term political priorities, often flying blind with only untested theories and hunches to go by, and characterized by attempts to reconcile perceived global "realities" with the real constraints of domestic pressures, interests, and values"24. And this because as Jean-Paul Fitoussi emphasized: "economic integration brings openness. Openness triggers volatility. Volatility fuels insecurity. Insecurity requires protection. The central problem of globalization, now and then, is thus how the demand for protection resulting from economic, social and environmental insecurity is met. This is the reason why the most urgent tasks for governments in the world in which we live is to devise the future, in a way to invent it to unveil what is considered by a large majority of our fellow citizens as an obscure road towards tomorrow. If the present fog continues to prevail, we will have great difficulties to be actors of our own destiny. In other words, we need new utopias to show the way. These utopias, unlike ideology and religions, have to be sustainable on earth... By sustainable utopia, I mean a system which is both feasible and acceptable. For example, globalization as a process is a feasible utopia, but for a large section of the population is not acceptable, because of the huge inequalities - both between countries and inside countries - it apparently leads to. If we try to disentangle rhetoric from reality, globalization is not exactly what we think it is. In effect, we have to recognize from the outset that the phenomenon of globalization is happening in a world populated by nation states without emptiness in between the Nations. And what could be the function of a nation if not to protect its population? More than ever the nation states of the world are alive and well: the hyper power of the United States, the super power of Europe, Russia, China, India and the like. Hence the rhetoric of globalization clashes with the reality of the phenomena as power and protection are putting strict limits on the interplay of free markets"25.

Footnote

1 Barry Eichengreen, The European Economy Since 1945. Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond, 2007, Princeton University Press, Princeton, p.425.

2 Barry Eichengreen, The European Economy Since 1945. Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond, 2007, Princeton University Press, Princeton, p.413.

3 See Andreas Bieler, The Struggle for a Social Europe: Trade Unions and EMU in Times of Global Restructuring, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006; B.S. Hager, "New Europeans" for the "New European Economy": Citizenship and the Lisbon Agenda', 2009 in B. van Apeldoorn, J. Drahokoupil and L. Horn (eds), Neoliberal European Governance and Beyond: The Contradictions of a Political Project, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009.

4 See S. Leibfried, Social Policy, in H. Wallace and W. Wallace (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.

5See B. van Apeldoorn, J. Drahokoupil and L. Horn (eds), Neoliberal European Governance and Beyond: The Contradictions of a Political Project, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009.

6 Andreas Bieler, Labour, New Social Movements and the Resistance to Neoliberal Restructuring in Europe, New Political Economy, 2011, 16:2, 163-183.

7 David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p.2.

8 See Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom , 1944.

9 Kean Birch, Vlad Mykhnenko (editors), The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism. The Collapse of an Economic Order, Zed Books, London & New York, 2010, p.135.

10 Julie Macleavy, Remaking the Welfare State: from Safety Net to Trampoline, in Kean Birch, Vlad Mykhnenko (editors), The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism. The Collapse of an Economic Order, Zed Books, London & New York, 2010, p.132.

11 Gerard Dumenil, Dominique Levy, The Crisis of Neoliberalism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 2011, p.1.

12 See, for example, Robert K. Schaeffer, Understanding Globalization, 2nd Edition, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 2003.

13 Edward Luttwak, Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy, Harper Collins, New York, 1999, p.27.

14 Robert Gilpin, The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000, p.65-75.

15 See Friedrich von Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Routlege& Kegan Paul, London, 1979.

16 See Milton & Rose Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962; see also Milton & Rose Friedman, Free to Choose. A Personal Statement, Harcourt Brace & Company, Chicago, 1979.

17 Robert Gilpin, The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000, p.20.

18 For a detailed discussion on this topic see, for example, Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat. A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2006, p.35-119.

19 See William H. Gates, Business at the Speed of Thought: Using a Digital Nervous System, 1st Edition, Warner Books, 2000.

20 Manfred B. Steger, Globalism: Market Ideology Meets Terrorism, 2nd Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Boulder, New York, 2005, p.30.

21 Susanne Soederberg, Georg Menz, Phillip G. Cerny (eds.), Internalizing Globalization. The Rise of Neoliberalism and the Decline of National Varieties of Capitalism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2005, p.2-3.

22 Susan Strange, The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

23 Susanne Soederberg, Georg Menz, Phillip G. Cerny (eds.), Internalizing Globalization. The Rise of Neoliberalism and the Decline of National Varieties of Capitalism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2005, p.4

24 Susanne Soederberg, Georg Menz, Phillip G. Cerny (eds.), Internalizing Globalization. The Rise of Neoliberalism and the Decline of National Varieties of Capitalism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2005, p.5

25 Jean-Paul Fitoussi, Jacques Le Cacheux (eds)_Report on the State of the European Union. Crisis in the EU Economic Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2010, p.11

References

REFERENCES

Apeldoorn, B. van, Drahokoupil, J. and Horn, L. (eds.) (2009), Neoliberal European Governance and Beyond: The Contradictions of a Political Project, Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Bieler, Andreas, (2006), The Struggle for a Social Europe: Trade Unions and EMU in Times of Global Restructuring, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Bieler, Andreas, (2011), Labour, New Social Movements and the Resistance to Neoliberal Restructuring in Europe, New Political Economy, (2011), 16:2, 163-183.

Birch, Kean, Mykhnenko, Vlad, (editors), (2010), The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism. The Collapse of an Economic Order, Zed Books, London & New York.

Dumenil, Gerard, Levy, Dominique, (2011), The Crisis of Neoliberalism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.

Eichengreen, Barry, (2007), The European Economy Since 1945. Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Fitoussi, Jean-Paul, Le Cacheux, Jacques (eds.), (2010), Report on the State of the European Union. Crisis in the EU Economic Governance, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Friedman, Milton & Rose, (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, Milton& Rose, (1979), Free to Choose. A Personal Statement, Chicago, Harcourt Brace & Company.

Friedman, Thomas L., (2006), The World is Flat. A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, Farrar, New York, Straus and Giroux.

Gates, William H., (2000), Business at the Speed of Thought: Using a Digital Nervous System, 1st Edition, Warner Books.

Gilpin, Robert, (2000), The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Hager, B.S., (2009), "New Europeans" for the "New European Economy": Citizenship and the Lisbon Agenda', in B. van Apeldoorn, Drahokoupil, J., and Horn, L. (eds.), (2009), Neoliberal European Governance and Beyond: The Contradictions of a Political Project, Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Harvey, David, (2005), A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Hayek, Friedrich A., (1944), The Road to Serfdom, London, Routledge.

Hayek, Friedrich von, (1979), Law, Legislation, and Liberty, London, Routlege& Kegan Paul.

Leibfried, S., (2005), Social Policy, in H. Wallace and W. Wallace (eds.) (2005), Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Luttwak, Edward, (1999), Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy, New York, Harper Collins.

Macleavy, Julie, (2010), Remaking the Welfare State: from Safety Net to Trampoline, in Birch, Kean, Mykhnenko, Vlad, (editors), (2010), The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism. The Collapse of an Economic Order, London & New York, Zed Books.

Schaeffer, Robert K., (2003), Understanding Globalization, 2nd Edition, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

Soederberg, Susanne, Menz, Georg, Cerny, Phillip G., (eds.), (2005), Internalizing Globalization. The Rise of Neoliberalism and the Decline of National Varieties of Capitalism, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Steger, Manfred B., (2005), Globalism: Market Ideology Meets Terrorism, 2nd Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Boulder, New York.

Strange, Susan, (1996), The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.