Search

The chapter contends that the neoliberal claim of superiority of the free-functioning market has been critiqued and replaced by new and diverging views that address the crisis of neoliberalism and the rise of protectionist, ultra-nationalist, and racialized views advanced by populist, far-right, authoritarian movements and regimes. The rationale behind this argument rests on the tenet that capitalism is a contradictory system whose outcomes need to be rationalized and accepted by subordinate groups that do not benefit from them. Following this approach, the chapter discusses the historical conditions that supported the acceptance of neoliberalism. It also briefly reviews the implementation of neoliberalism and globalization by stressing the historical elements that allowed for their development. It further illustrates the crisis of neoliberalism and the populist reaction that followed. It underscores that the emergence of high levels of socioeconomic inequality and uncertainty along with the intervention of the state to address the crisis emanating from the Great Recession of 2008-2009 created the conditions for a restructuring of capitalism in the form of an emergent global neoliberal authoritarian capitalism. It concludes by pointing out the inability of neoliberalism, Trumpism, and right-wing populism to address the fundamental contradictions of contemporary capitalism, arguing that calls for economic protectionism, political isolationism, and the repressive control of global flows of labor run counter not only to fundamental democratic principles but also to the requirements of global capitalism and its form of capital accumulation today.

Introduction Alessandro Bonanno, Kae Sekine and Hart N. Feuer Part I Theoretical Assumptions 1. Geographical Indication in Agri-Food and its Role in the Neoliberal Global Era: A Theoretical Analysis Alessandro Bonanno Part II The Asian Context 2. Geographical Indications out of Context and in Vogue: The Awkward Embrace of European Heritage Agricultural Protections in Asia Hart N. Feuer 3. The Impact of Geographical Indications on the Power Relations between Producers and Agri-Food Corporations: A Case of Powdered Green Tea "Matcha" Kae Sekine 4. Provenance for Whom? A Comparative Analysis of Geographical Indications in the EU and Indonesia Cinzia Piatti and Angga Dwiartama Part III Cases from Europe 5. How to Use Geographical Indication for the Democratization of Agricultural Production: A Comparative Analysis of GI Rent-seeking Strategies in Turkey Derya Nizan 6. Geographical Indications - A Double-Edged Tool for Food Democracy. The Cases of the Norwegian GI-Evolution and the Protection of Stockfish from Lofoten as Cultural Adaptation Work Atle Wehn Hegnes and Virginie Amilien 7. The Decline of the French Label of Origin Wine Romain Blancaneaux 8. Modern Resilience of Georgian Wine: Geographical Indications and International Exposure Anastasiya Shtaltovna and Hart N. Feuer Part IV Cases from the Americas 9. The Multi-level, Multi-actor and Multifunctional System of Geographical Indications in Brazil Paulo Niederle, John Wilkinson and Gilberto Mascarenhas 10. The GI of Mezcal in Mexico: A Tool of Exclusion for Small Producers Marie-Christine Renard and David Rodolfo Dominguez Arista 11. Whose Labor Counts as Craft? Terroir and Farm Workers in North American Craft Cider Anelyse Weiler 12. The Potential Role of Geographical Indication in Supporting Indigenous Communities in Canada Donna Appavoo and Monika Korzun 13. Conclusions: Comprehensive Change and the limits and Power of Sectorial Measures Alessandro Bonanno, Kae Sekine and Hart N. Feuer

This Chapter reviews the conditions that determine the legitimation crisis of global neoliberalism. It argues that the achievement of legitimation has always been linked to the management of the contradiction between the bourgeois claims of democracy and equality and the concentration of capital and power engendered by the development of capitalism. Under laissez-faire capitalism, this contradiction was resolved through the adoption of the nature-like functioning of the market as the organizing principle of society. Fordism was based on the organizing principle of state-regulated capitalism. As this form of legitimation was undermined by the crisis of the state, the impartiality of the free market proposed by neoliberals became the new organizing principle of society. However, as market mechanisms cannot address the contradictions of capitalism and state intervention is necessary, the legitimation crisis of neoliberalism developed. While solutions to the legitimation crisis are not available and substantive opposition remains weak, the chapter concludes, change is directed by corporate forces that will continue to pursue their interests and only marginally will grant some of the claims of subordinate groups.

This chapter probes salient ideological and cultural aspects of regulated capitalism. Presented through reviews of the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, Talcott Parsons, and Daniel Bell, these characteristics mandated the creation of a new will-formation that allowed the submission of the working class to the requirements of Fordist production. Additionally, the structuralist critique of Fordist cultural arrangements and Jurgen Habermas theory of the crisis of regulated capitalism are presented. The chapter continues by illustrating the contradictions of regulated capitalism will-formation. Following Habermas theory, it is argued that the culture and ideology of Fordism were incompatible with the requirements of capitalism and could not be upheld through state intervention. The state was unable to maintain mass loyalty while promoting the conditions necessary for the expansion of the economy.

Chapter 8 reviews the issue of resistance to neoliberalism by stressing its importance in the context of the creation of alternatives to the current status quo. The chapter further illustrates the corporate colonization of contemporary resistance for activist organizations associate with corporations and/or act like corporations. The concomitant commodification of activism indicates the tendency to frame actions of resistance in market terms. The chapter concludes by stressing that the corporate colonization of resistance and the commodification of activism coexist with high levels of labor exploitation.

This chapter analyzes the conditions that created the early legitimation of global neoliberalism and later engendered its legitimation crisis. While the claim of impartiality of market relations legitimized neoliberalism, subsequent events engendered not only a crisis of system integration but also a crisis of social integration. The crisis of social integration is made explicit by the rampant dissatisfaction with the corporate domination of society that invalidates new forms of “civic privatism.” These conditions, the chapter concludes, delegitimize the message of desirability of an economy and society based on the free functioning of the market and its ideology.

This chapter concludes the analysis of the crisis of Fordism by reviewing the structural contradictions that destabilized it. It reviews the conditions and requirements for the application of Keynesian economic policies and briefly illustrates their implementation in advanced and developing countries. It continues by elucidating the mechanisms through which the legitimation of the state regulation of the economy and society were pursued. In this context, it underscores the concepts of ideological legitimation and material legitimation and discusses Fordism unresolved contradictions of material legitimation. In particular, it analyzes the contradictions of the state management of the wage structure, the class nature of Fordism, state planning, and the inability of the state to reconcile bourgeois claims with the historical conditions. The chapter concludes by stressing the unsustainability of Fordism and contradictory position of the labor movement within this system.

This chapter continues the review of the basic tenets of neoliberalism through an analysis of salient ideas of two key members of the Chicago School of Economics: Milton Friedman and Gary Becker. It is stressed that Friedman provided a rationale for the desirability of supply-side economics and a justification of the notion of socio-economic inequality. Becker’s notions of “homo economicus” and “human capital” provided the tools to legitimize individual competition, individuality, and individual responsibility as they were presented as indispensable for the good functioning of the economy and society. The chapter concludes by stressing the contradictions embedded in the neoliberal notions of competition, inequality, and uncertainty.

This chapter illustrates salient socio-economic conditions that allowed the implementation of neoliberalism and reviews basic aspects of early theories of neoliberalism. It opens with an illustration of the transition from Fordism to neoliberalism and the development of neoliberal globalization. It underscores the creation of global networks of production and consumption and the emergence of the current global working class and global capitalist class. It further stresses the importance of the crisis of the left vis-a-vis discourses that discredited the negotiated solutions of the contradictions of capitalism and supported the impartiality and desirability of the functioning of the market. The fundamental ideological components of neoliberalism are illustrated through a review of relevant ideas of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and the debate and events surrounding the evolution of neoliberalism from the creation of the Mont Pelerin Society to the first adoption of neoliberal ideas by the ordoliberals in the post-World War II West Germany. The chapter concludes by stressing the importance of the related concepts of the impartiality of the market and the “end of politics.”

El objetivo de este artículo es de examinar las características principales del proceso de globalización del sistema agro-alimentario en relación al desarrollo socio-económico de América Latina. La vasta literatura sobre la globalización está resumida en tres grupos distintos. Los neo-liberales radicales argumentan que la globalización representa la receta necesaria para adelantar el desarrollo socio-económico a nivel mundial. Los centristas intervencionistas destacan que, aunque las dinámicas de mercado tienen una importancia central, no es posible mantener los equilibrios sociales y económicos sin la intervención del Estado. El tercer grupo critica la globalización y la define como un sistema contradictorio que aumenta la brecha entre los países ricos y los pobres y, dentro de cada uno de ellos, las desigualdades entre las clases sociales. Empleando tres estudios de caso, el trabajo analiza tres hipótesis generadas por este debate. La primera se refiere a la cuestión del funcionamiento del libre mercado, la segunda a la cuestión de la fuerza y papel del Estado y la tercera a la cuestión de la democracia. Se concluye que el mercado está fuertemente condicionado por las CTNs y que sus acciones afectan negativamente a varios grupos sociales. También, se destaca que el Estado mantiene importantes poderes que, sin embargo, están siendo usados para adelantar los intereses de la CTNs creando condiciones favorables para la hiper-movilidad del capital. En relación al tercer tema se concluye que la globalización limita la participación popular en procesos de toma de decisiones, pero, simultáneamente, genera resistencia y movilización social. Las conclusiones subrayan que la globalización crea una crisis de programas de desarrollo nacional dado que el crecimiento económico se basa más en el eje regional-global. También, se indica que la inclusión en los circuitos globales tiende a generar crecimiento de los beneficios para las compañías pero que no se traduce necesariamente en desarrollo social. Esta situación indica la exclusión de los circuitos globales como una estrategia democrática de desarrollo socio-económico. This article is aimed at examining the main characteristics of the process of globalization of the agri-food system regarding Latin America's socioeconomic development. The vast literature on globalization is summarized in three distinct groups. Radical neoliberals argue that globalization represents the necessary prescription for advancing the world socioeconomic development. Interventionist-centrists sustain that even though market dynamics have a central role, it is not possible to keep social and economic balance without state intervention. The third group criticizes globalization and defines it as a contradictory system that widens the gap between rich and poor countries and the gap between social classes within individual countries. Based on three case studies, this work examines three hypotheses generated by this debate. The first one concerns the workings of free market; the second one refers to the state's power and role; and the third one is related to the issue of democracy. The conclusion is that the market is strongly conditioned by transnational corporations and their actions negatively affect several social groups. It is also argued that the state keeps important powers, which, however, are being used to advance transnational corporations' interests, thus creating favorable conditions to capital's hypermobility. Regarding the third subject it is pointed out that globalization restrains popular participation in decision-making processes but simultaneously generates resistance and social mobilization. The conclusions underline that globalization generates a crisis in national development programs since economic growth is more based on the regional-global axis. It is also said that inclusion in global circles tends to increase benefits to companies but that does not necessarily translate into social development. Such situation indicates exclusion from global circles as a democratic strategy for socioeconomic development.

This article first reviews debates that stress the contrasting interpretations of globalization existing at the social, political, and economic levels. Globalization is defined in terms of the combined processes of acceleration of time and compression of social space. The development of transnational corporations (TNCs) since the 1960s reveals that these organizations, that operate globally and do not necessarily identify with a particular country, play an increasingly important role in the global economy, politics, and society. This article reviews the primary interpretations of the position and role of TNCs under globalization.

Introduction Steven A. Wolf and Alessandro Bonanno Part 1: Theoretical Analyses and Key Concepts 1. The Legitimation Crisis of Neoliberal Globalization: Instances from Agriculture and Food Alessandro Bonanno 2. How Neoliberal Myths Endanger Democracy and Open New Avenues for Democratic Action Lawrence Busch 3. Policing the New Enclosures: On Violence, Primitive Accumulation, and Crisis in the Neoliberal Food System Morgan Buck Part 2: Case Studies 4. The Rise and Fall of a Prairie Giant: the Canadian Wheat Board in Food Regime History Andre Magnan 5. Navigating the Neoliberal-Nativist Interface: Farmer Survival and the Construction of Racially Segregated Workplaces Jill Harrison 6. Creating Rupture through Policy: Considering the Importance of Ideas in Agrifood Change Rebecca L. Som Castellano 7. Beyond Farming: Cases of Revitalization of Rural Communities through Multi-Role Community Farming Enterprise as Social Service Provider Haruhiko Iba and Kiyohiko Sakamoto Part 3: Research Opportunities 8. To Bt or not to Bt? State, Civil Society, and Firms Debate GM Seeds in Democratic India Devparna Roy 9. Turning of the Tide: Rising Discontent over Transgenic Crops in Brazil Karine Peschard 10. U.S. Agrienvironmental Policy: Neoliberalization of Nature Meets Old Public Management Steven A. Wolf 11. For Competitiveness Sake?: Material Competition vs. Competitiveness as a National Project Anouk Patel-Campillo 12. The Neoliberal Food Regime in Latin America: State, Agribusiness Transnational Corporations and Biotechnology Gerardo Otero 13. 'Just Another Asset Class'?: Neoliberalism, Finance, and the Construction of Farmland Investment Madeleine Fairbairn 14. Neoliberalism in the Antipodes: Understanding the Influence and Limits of the Neoliberal Political Project Geoffrey Lawrence Hugh Campbell 15. Conclusion: The Plasticity and Contested Terrain of Neoliberalism Steven A. Wolf and Alessandro Bonanno

We address here how the U.S. neoliberal policy regime developed and how its reconstructed vision of modernization, which culminated, under the rubric of globalization, was neutralized by 9/11 and neoconservative geopolitics. We analyze the phases in the rise of neoliberalism, and provide a detailed map of its vision of global modernization at its high tide under Clinton. We also address how the Bush Doctrine's unilateral, preemptive polices and the consequent War on Terror and Iraq War eroded U.S. legitimacy as the globalization system's hegmon and shifted the discourse from globalization to empire. Cold War modernization theorists, neoliberal globalization advocates, and Bush doctrine neoconservatives all drew on an American exceptionalist tradition that portrays the U.S. as modernity's “lead society,” attaches universal significance to its values, policies, and institutions, and urges their worldwide diffusion. All three traditions ignore or diminish the importance of substantive equality and social justice. We suggest that consequent U.S. policy problems might be averted by recovery of a suppressed side of the American tradition that stresses social justice and holds that democracy must start at home and be spread by example rather than by exhortation or force. Overall, we explore the contradictory U.S. role in an emergent post-Cold War world.

Arguably democracy and globalization are among the most debated topics in contemporary scientific, political and cultural circles. Indeed, for some optimistic observers, these two phenomena are end points. Globalization is a process that generates economic prosperity and provides fresh opportunities for the emancipation of selves. Democracy is a product of previous phases of the evolution of society, but it has reached its most advanced form in this post-Fordist, post-cold war, global society (e.g. Friedman, 2000; Fukuyama, 1992). For critical thinkers, however, the growth of globalization problematizes the existence and practice of democracy. In an interesting convergence of opinions, this latter group includes radical conservative and progressive theorists alike. Radical Conservatives have argued that globalization engenders a crisis of democracy and that this situation is to be addressed through a retreat to the local and the ethnic. This new tribalism (Antonio, 2000; de Benoist, 1995) features attacks against the “move to the center” (the Clinton-Blair centralism) of many historically leftist and progressive liberal groups. The critics contend that the mainstream parties have converged and that neither the conventional left or right offer alternatives to the dominant neo-liberal approach, crisis-ridden post World War II idea of socio-economic development, or the erosion of sovereignty entailed by globalization. In this regard, the radical right proposes the replacement of “demos” with “ethnos” as the key organizational concept for contemporary society.

Discussions of the position of the elderly have typically been cast in terms of demographic considerations and/or level of industrialisation. In contradistinction to this approach we employ a political economic perspective which reveals the contradictions present in the situation of aged small farmers in southern Italy. Using a dialectic approach, it is argued that the function performed by the small farm sector, that of keeper of the surplus labour force, is extended to deal with the elderly population. Within this context, rurality assumes a permanent posture as the aged farmers are maintained at the margin of the labour market and are eventually expelled from it. At the same time, this farming segment substitutes for other social agencies as a caretaker for a portion of the older population. This function, however, creates social tensions for it mandates continuous State support for the survival of these farms, demands which are resisted by the bourgeoisie and certain segments of the working class. Even if it were deemed appropriate, the State cannot extend its support to small farms without simultaneously calling forth a fiscal and legitimation crisis stemming from its policy coverage.