Neoliberalist Development

Neoliberalism Neoliberal ideology has contributed to the rise in development and reduction of poverty in much of the world since World War II. The main bodies responsible for neoliberalism, such as the United Nations and later the World Trade Organization have encouraged trade, economic openness and democracy. Where these things have not been accepted -- where neoliberalism has been rejected, living standards tend to be lower, and where neoliberalism has been embraced wholeheartedly the living standards are as high as have been enjoyed by any humans in history.

De Soto describes some of the development that has occurred in Peru, which is a moderately neoliberal state. He argues that individual effort can come before collective effort, a hallmark of neoliberalism and that this has resulted higher living standards for many of the country's citizens. De Soto also notes that these changes have also been at the social level. The people of Peru have made changes in their religious habits, they consume different forms of culture and they are more educated as well.

He provides a good case study for neoliberalism's benefits -- with increased wealth comes the tax base and educated citizenry to produce public infrastructure, improve medical conditions, public transport and build a stronger legal system. One of the most prominent triumphs of neoliberalism came in the U.S.S.R. Mikhail Gorbachev became a reformer of the system, in which a command economy and totalitarian politics had failed to keep pace with the development of the neoliberal West.

He wrote "At a certain stage the country began to lose momentum…stagnation appeared…all this had a negative effect on the development of many spheres of the life of society." Where the neoliberal nations had continued to develop, the U.S.S.R.'s development had stalled. That is not to say that neoliberalism is without its critics. Old time Marxists like Che Guevara and Salvador Allende both wrote against neoliberalism, but they were also not keen to see anybody other than themselves controlling their country.

The empty rhetoric about the people is drivel when we know that the people in their vision control absolutely nothing, and ultimately live in poverty, as is the case in Cuba today. There are far sharper criticisms that can be offered, but they will not come from Marxists who cannot point to a single successful implementation of their worldview with respect to either economic nor human development.

This is perhaps the most interesting dichotomy -- the supposedly worker-centered Marxist societies failed to deliver human development while neoliberal institutions that favor wealthy countries and corporations have managed yet to deliver a high standard of living all around the world. Even China, once in opened its borders and especially once it joined the World Trade Organization, has seen remarkably development and poverty reduction.

There are many poor countries that remain in this world, but in most instances there is either a lack of stability, or where stability does exist there is a lack of commitment to neoliberalism. Staunchly socialist counties like Bangladesh languish while open economies of eastern European.