Claws and Fangs of Neoliberalism

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES,, 2020

The main feature of capital accumulation in Brazil during the administrations led by Luís Inácio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers' Party-PT) was the continuity of neoliberalism of two varieties: inclusive (2003-2006) and developmental (2006-2013). The PT's attachment to neoliberalism was mitigated by the party's (shifting) commitment to (mild) developmental outcomes, redistribution of income (at the margin), social inclusion (within narrow limits), and democratization of the state (bounded by the 1988 Constitution). Achievements in these areas were further constrained by the inability or unwillingness of the PT to confront the institutionalization of neoliberalism in the fields of economics, politics, ideology, the media, and class relations. The political crisis unfolding in Brazil since 2013 and the imposition of authoritarian neoliberalism after Rousseff's impeachment can be examined from the perspective of the contradictions in the dominant varieties of neoliberalism under the PT and the limitations of the party's political ambitions. A principal característica da acumulação de capital no Brasil durante os governos ûiderados por Luís Inácio Lula da Silva e Dilma Rousseff do Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) foi a continuidade do neoliberalismo de duas variedades: inclusiva (2003-2006) e desenvolvimentista (2006-2013). O apego do PT ao neoliberalismo foi mitigado pelo compromisso (inconstante) do partido com resultados de desenvolvimento (moderados), redistribuição de renda (na margem), inclusão social (dentro de limites estreitos) e democratização do estado (limitado pela Constituição de 1988). As realizações nessas áreas foram ainda mais limitadas pela incapacidade ou falta de vontade do PT em enfren-tar a institucionalização do neoliberalismo nos campos da economia, política, ideologia, mídia e relações de classe. A crise política que se desenrola no Brasil desde 2013 e a imposição do neoliberalismo autoritário após o impeachment de Dilma podem ser exam-inadas sob a perspectiva das contradições nas variedades dominantes de neoliberalismo sob o PT e as limitações das ambições políticas do partido.

Brazil during the neoliberal era is a particularly interesting case because it is an example of economic policy being consciously used to reform the nature of both the economy and politics of a country while simultaneously reflecting a shift in nature of policies required for electoral success. It is also an interesting case because the political leadership in the country at the presidential level was the critical factor initiating, leading, and maintaining the transformative economic policies. As will be set out in the first section, Fernando Henrique Cardoso drew on a new political reality to explicitly deploy the principles of classical liberal economics during his presidency (1995-2002) in an effort to consolidate and further liberalize democracy within Brazil while simultaneously seeking to create a stable platform upon which future years of growth might take place. The criticality of the political shift that underpinned Cardoso’s programs was reinforced by the presidency of the Workers’ Party Luiz Inácio da Silva. The cosmetic twists and turns Lula added along the way to appease his political base will be outlined in the second section. The transformation in Brazil’s profile that begins to emerge in the final section suggests that it is not liberal or neoliberal-style economic policies that are the problem per se, but that the failures stem from a lack of concomitant governance reforms, chiefly the absence of adequate institutional and regulatory reform as well as a shortage of investment in key areas such as infrastructure.

The aim of this article is to demonstrate the urgent need to abandon the neoliberal economic model implemented in Brazil in 1990, as its failure is evidenced by the poor results obtained in the economic and social spheres, and to replace it with the national developmental model along the Keynesian lines, in which the State would assume the role of inducing economic and social development. The neoliberal economic model was adopted globally as a political project launched by the capitalist class when the global capitalist system showed a decline in the profitability of capital and felt greatly threatened, politically and economically, in the late 1960s and 1970s with the advance of socialism in the world. The neoliberal economic model adopted in Brazil has contributed to causing true devastation in the Brazilian economy since its implementation in 1990, resulting in: 1) poor economic growth; 2) a drop in investment rates in the Brazilian economy; 3) the deindustrialization of the Brazilian economy; 4) the worsening of Brazil's social problems with the increase in income concentration, unemployment, and extreme poverty; and 5) the incapacity of the Brazilian State to solve economic and social problems. For the Brazilian State to regain its capacity to act as an inducer of development in Brazil, it is urgent to ensure that the country's progressive forces gain a majority in the National Congress, in addition to the Presidency of the Republic, to neutralize the retrograde political forces that defend neoliberalism and put an end to the policy of privatization of state-owned companies, the policy of capping public spending, and the autonomy of the Central Bank.

Latin American Perspectives, 2020

The main feature of capital accumulation in Brazil during the administrations led by Luís Inácio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party—PT) was the continuity of neoliberalism of two varieties: inclusive (2003–2006) and developmental (2006–2013). The PT’s attachment to neoliberalism was mitigated by the party’s (shifting) commitment to (mild) developmental outcomes, redistribution of income (at the margin), social inclusion (within narrow limits), and democratization of the state (bounded by the 1988 Constitution). Achievements in these areas were further constrained by the inability or unwillingness of the PT to confront the institutionalization of neoliberalism in the fields of economics, politics, ideology, the media, and class relations. The political crisis unfolding in Brazil since 2013 and the imposition of authoritarian neoliberalism after Rousseff’s impeachment can be examined from the perspective of the contradictions in the dominant varieties of neoliberalism under the PT and the limitations of the party’s political ambitions. A principal característica da acumulação de capital no Brasil durante os governos ûiderados por Luís Inácio Lula da Silva e Dilma Rousseff do Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) foi a continuidade do neoliberalismo de duas variedades: inclusiva (2003–2006) e desenvolvimentista (2006–2013). O apego do PT ao neoliberalismo foi mitigado pelo compromisso (inconstante) do partido com resultados de desenvolvimento (moderados), redistribuição de renda (na margem), inclusão social (dentro de limites estreitos) e democratização do estado (limitado pela Constituição de 1988). As realizações nessas áreas foram ainda mais limitadas pela incapacidade ou falta de vontade do PT em enfrentar a institucionalização do neoliberalismo nos campos da economia, política, ideologia, mídia e relações de classe. A crise política que se desenrola no Brasil desde 2013 e a imposição do neoliberalismo autoritário após o impeachment de Dilma podem ser examinadas sob a perspectiva das contradições nas variedades dominantes de neoliberalismo sob o PT e as limitações das ambições políticas do partido.

The neoliberal economic model implemented in 1990 is largely responsible for worsening Brazil's social problems today. Social devastation has been the main result of the neoliberal economic model in Brazil inaugurated by President Fernando Collor in 1990 and maintained by Presidents Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula da Silva, Dilma Roussef, Michel Temer and Jair Bolsonaro. The current economic recession, social inequality, mass unemployment and the extreme poverty of the country demonstrate the infeasibility of the neoliberal model implemented in Brazil. The social devastation suffered by Brazil with social inequality, mass unemployment and extreme poverty is demonstrated through indicators of concentration of income, unemployment, social inequality and extreme poverty.

This article offers a political economy interpretation of the continuation of neoliberalism in Brazil under the Workers’ Party (PT) administration led by Luı´s Ina´cio Lula da Silva from 2003 onwards. Neoliberal economic policies were closely associated with the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1994–2002) and they were widely perceived to have been rejected by voters in the 2002 elections. Many observers found it surprising that the new administration maintained its predecessor’s economic programme. The government has also rejected calls from its core supporters to change course in order to deliver sustainable growth and distributional and welfare improvements in Brazil.

Historical Materialism-research in Critical Marxist Theory, 2005

This paper offers a political economy analysis of the two systems of accumulation in the postwar Brazilian economy: import-substituting industrialisation (ISI) and new liberalism, and the industrial policies associated with them. The transition between these two systems of accumulation from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s is reviewed in the light of the country’s key macroeconomic indicators and the political developments which have determined the choice and implementation of economic policy in each period. It is argued that, despite their significant achievements, both ISI and new liberalism were implemented unevenly and inconsistently, and that their shortcomings can be analysed at two levels: internal micro- and macro-economic limitations preventing these development strategies from achieving their stated aims, and external limitations imposed by social conflicts during each period of time. The paper concludes, first, that industrial policies are closely associated with specific state structures, economic constraints, and political configurations which can be analysed only concretely (there can be no general theory of industrial policy, and there is no ‘optimum path’ of accumulation under late development). Second, each system of accumulation is limited by a distinctive set of historically specific economic and political constraints, which set limits to its potential development. Third, and precisely for these reasons, industrial policy is irreducibly political and context-specific.

The practice has demonstrated the impracticability of the neoliberal economic model in Brazil inaugurated by President Fernando Collor in 1990 and maintained by Presidents Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula and Dilma Rousseff. Low economic growth in Brazil and the disproportionate rise in federal debt during the Cardoso, Lula and Dilma Rousseff governments demonstrate the infeasibility of the neoliberal model implemented in the country. Not only FHC left a compromising economic legacy of Brazil's development. Lula and Rousseff are also responsible for this situation because they were not able to adopt an economic model that would contribute to the effectiveness of economic and social progress in Brazil. As far as the Cardoso government, Lula and Dilma Rousseff governments maintained the neoliberal model that helped to cause real havoc in the Brazilian economy from 2002 to 2014 set in: 1) the meager economic growth and runaway inflation; 2) the bottlenecks on the economic and social infrastructure; 3) the de-industrialization of the Brazilian economy; 4) the explosion of internal and external debt, the denationalization of the Brazilian economy and the deepening financial crisis in the public sector; 5) the failure of government social policy and the elimination of regional inequalities; 6) the worsening state of the environment; and 7) the resumption of privatization policy.

Globalizations, 2018

Analysis of Brazil's political and economic crisis tends to emphasize the economic 'errors' that President Dilma Rousseff's Workers' Party (PT) government inherited from her predecessor Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva. It is clear, however, that political regulation is too narrow a focus to understand the current crisis. Such an explanation is unable to reveal the changes in class structure that took place during the Lula era as well as the effects of the international economic crisis. This article identifies the limits of the Brazilian development model and the main features of Lula's mode of regulation; analyses the conflicts produced by the neo-liberal regime of accumulation and the Lulista mode of regulation, emphasizing the role of precarious work in the current historical cycle of strikes and popular struggles in Brazil; and, finally, interprets the palace coup promoted by the social forces behind the impeachment of President Rousseff.