Neoliberal Reform and Limitations Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Neoliberal Reform and Limitations. Answer: Introduction: After the effect of 25 years of radical neoliberal reform all over the World, the status of modern economic strength within country is raised drastically. As emphasized by Zenawi (2012), the concept of liberalism implies the legitimacy of the power and authority within a state that primarily focuses on the liberty as well as equity of an individual. The underlining term neo-liberalism is nothing but a policy model of social studies or economics that tends to transfer the entire economic control from public sector to the private sector. However, Zenawi (2012) opined that the two overarching concept neo-liberalism and globalization are inseparably related to each other. There is a basic difference between the two concepts. The notion of globalization has been emerged initially. The practice of neo-liberalism has been rendered on globalization in the late twentieth century capitalism. Governments by rendering liberalism on tax policies, trade regulations and fix exchange rate allowed the private sectors for expanding their business wings in the international market. After the rapid growth of private sectors, the scope of open market and trade liberalization has been increased innumerably. Discussion: Piketty in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century has argued that inherited wealth always goes faster than the earned wealth. As a result, an unemployed rich person does not have to struggle in order to earn money due to the bank balance stability of father. On the other hand, poor unemployed person has to lead the entire life in Barista Uniform. As a result, the society is actually are returning to the patrimonial capitalism of the C19th with extremes of wealth inequality. Numerous eminent scholars have strongly differed the point of view of Piketty. Torres and Carte (2014) stated that the emergence of neo-liberalism has amplified the efficiency of market economy. The private sectors have gained immense opportunities in leading their organization on their own way instead of being entirely dependent on the government regulations and policies. The private sectors after the entrance of neo-liberalism within country gained the liberty of self-recruitment and self-management by sav ing their cost in order to improve the commoditization. As a result, the business organizations are expanding their entire process of business in the international market with limited government intervention. Bardsley and Pech (2012) commented that the range of target customers has been increased from regional boundary to multinational boundaries. Due to the rapid establishment of private sectors, the country is becoming economically enriched. The private organizations become free to maintain their self-recruitment process. Automatically countries belonging to different geographical boundaries would be able to develop their economic status. The rate of tax as well as public expenditure is getting reduced. As per the opinion of Vassallo (2013), the concept of implementing privatization within the organizational sector has ultimately enhanced the economic prospect of country. Fourcade and Healy (2013) has firmly differed the point of view of previous scholars. As per the opinion of this very specific scholar, neo-liberalism has rendered major negative effect on the country as well. After the emergence of this specific policy, the control of government on the private sector has become very much restricted. Duggan (2012) emphasized that private educational institutions by imposing high amount of money to the parents implement innovative learning process within the education system. As a result, the parents tend to show their reluctant attitude in admitting their children in a government school. Automatically, the public educational institutions are getting affected in getting economic strength. In the realm of globalization and trade liberalization, the rate of corruption has been highly increased highly. Large numbers of importers refuse to overview bill of origin while purchasing the material. As a result, the sellers can easily manipulate the purchasing in providing them duplicate material. This kind of unnecessary happening is occurring due to the liberal approach constituted by the government. Stanford and Taylor (2013) stated that neo-liberalism is the primary cause that increases the gap between haves and haves not. People belonging to high-class society are easily flexible to admit their children in private institution where they can get ample opportunities to groom them up. On the other hand, people having medium profile and economic backgrounds do not have enough scope to send their children in a private institution. At a certain point of time, a major gap has been created between rich and poor. Conclusion: As a whole, the overall concept of neo-liberalism implies the implementation of economic policy for the purpose of intensifying and expanding the market in order to minimize the intervention of government. Innumerable scholars have showed their own point of view regarding advantages and disadvantages of neo-liberalism. It is undeniable at the same time that the emergence of neo-liberalism is not beneficial for everyone in the realm of globalization. This particular policy is emerged in the society for keeping the promise that it would facilitate every individual of a society. In reality, the emergence of neo-liberalism has created a major gap between the rich and poor. In this kind of situation, inherited wealth always moves faster than earned wealth. As a result, people belonging to the poor society always struggle in establishing their name in the society. As a result, the gap between haves and haves not always becomes a major barrier within the society. References Bardsley, D.K. and Pech, P., 2012. Defining spaces of resilience within the neoliberal paradigm: could French land use classifications guide support for risk management within an Australian regional context?.Human ecology,40(1), pp.129-143. Duggan, L., 2012.The twilight of equality?: Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Beacon Press. Eagleton-Pierce, M., 2016.Neoliberalism: the key concepts. Routledge. Fourcade, M. and Healy, K., 2013. Classification situations: Life-chances in the neoliberal era.Accounting, Organizations and Society,38(8), pp.559-572. Randolph, B. and Tice, A., 2014. Suburbanizing disadvantage in Australian cities: sociospatial change in an era of neoliberalism.Journal of urban affairs,36(s1), pp.384-399. Springer, S., 2012. Neoliberalism as discourse: between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism.Critical Discourse Studies,9(2), pp.133-147. Stanford, S. and Taylor, S., 2013. Welfare dependence or enforced deprivation? A critical examination of white neoliberal welfare and risk.Australian Social Work,66(4), pp.476-494. Torres, R.M. and Carte, L., 2014. Community participatory appraisal in migration research: connecting neoliberalism, rural restructuring and mobility.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,39(1), pp.140-154. Vassallo, S., 2013. Critical pedagogy and neoliberalism: Concerns with teaching self-regulated learning.Studies in Philosophy and Education,32(6), pp.563-580. Zenawi, M., 2012. States and markets: Neoliberal limitations and the case for a developmental state.Good growth and governance in Africa: Rethinking development strategies, pp.140-174.