Answers to: Neoliberalism

Neolib Inev.

Neoliberalism is inevitable and sustainablePeck 2—(Canada Research Chair in Urban & Regional Political Economy and Professor of Geography, University of British Columbia. Former Honourary Professorial Fellow, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester. PhD in Geography. AND—Adam Tickell—Professor of Geography, University of Bristol. PhD (Jamie, Neoliberalizing space, Antipode 34 (3): 380-404)

In many respects, it would be tempting to conclude with a Ideological reading of neoliberalism, as if it were somehow locked on a course of increasing vulnerability to crisis . Yet this would be both politically complacent and theoretically erroneous . One of the most striking features of the recent

history of neoliberalism is its quite remarkable transformative capacity. To a greater extent than many would have predicted, including ourselves, neoliberalism has demonstrated an ability to

absorb or displace crisis tendencies, to ride—and capitalize upon—the very economic cycles and localized policy failures that it was complicit in creating, and to erode the foundations upon which generalized or extralocal resistance might be constructed. The transformative potential—and consequent political durability—of neoliberalism has been repeatedly underestimated, and reports of its death correspondingly exaggerated. Although antiglobalization protests have clearly disrupted the functioning of "business as usual" for some sections of the neoliberal elite, the underlying power structures of neoliberalism remain substantially intact. What remains to be seen is how far these acts of resistance, asymmetrical though the power relations clearly are, serve to expose the true character of neoliberalism as a political project. In its own explicit politicization, then, the resistance movement may have the capacity to hold a mirror to the process of (ostensibly apolitical) neoliberalization, revealing its real character, scope, and consequences.

Crises represent neoliberalism’s ability to adapt – not instabilitySpringer 9 – (Prof @ University of Otago (2009, Simon Springer, Prof @ University of Otago, “Postneoliberalism? Or What Geography Still Ought To Be,”)

Given the relationship between neoliberalism and crises, moments of crisis do not prefigure an impending collapse of the neoliberal project. Instead, crises actually represent a continuation that offers a window on the character of neoliberalism as an adaptive regime of socioeconomic governance (Peck, Theodore, and Brenner forthcoming). So to the question ‘does this crisis signal the end of neoliberalism?’, David Harvey (2009: np) appropriately responds by suggesting, “it depends what you mean by neo-liberalism. My interpretation is that it’s a class project, masked by a lot of neo-liberal rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatization

and the free market. These were means, however, towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that neo-liberal project has been fairly successful”. The corporate bailouts thus are not necessarily reflective of a terminal moment for neoliberalism, but instead represent a continuation of the class project, reconfigured under a modus operendi that explicitly returns its accumulative practices to the basis of taxation.

Neoliberalism is sustainable and inevitable – human nature and social complexity mean only growth can produce peace – only tapping into self-interest creates a sustainable social orderBarnhizer 06 (David, Prof of Law, Cleveland State U, ‘Waking from Sustainability's "Impossible Dream”,’ Geo Int’l Envtl L Rev, pg. l/n)

Devotees of sustainability pin their hopes on an awakening by an enlightened populace that will rise up and insist that business and government behave in ways that reflect the idea that "[a] sustainable society is one that can persist over generations, one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or its social systems of support ." n81 This awakening is not going to happen . There will never be a populist revolution in the way humans value the environment, social justice, and other matters of moral consequence . We frequently "talk the talk," but rarely "walk the walk." n82 This discrepancy is partly an individual failure, but it is even more a result of the powerful forces that operate within our culture . Residents of Western cultures are shaped by the system in which they live. They will never possess either the clarity of agenda or the political will essential to a coherent and coordinated shift in behavior due to a combination of ignorance, greed, sloth, and inundation by political and consumerist propaganda . This combination means there will be no values shift welling up from the people and demanding the transformation of our systems of production and resource use . Paul Tournier captured the essence of the cultural forces when he observed: [People] have become merely cogs in the machine of production, tools, functions. All that matters is what they do, not what they think or feel. . . . [T]heir thoughts and feelings are . . . molded by propaganda, press, cinema and radio. They read the same newspaper each day, hear the same slogans, see the same advertisements. n83

Feeling helpless in the face of inordinate complexity and vast impersonal forces causes us to flee from our personal responsibility and become absorbed into the systems of institutions . The price of the required allegiance includes accepting (or appearing to accept) the institution's values as our own . We become a contributing part of the same system that oppresses us and steals our humanity and idealism . This assimilation allows us to avoid the harshest application of the system's power while reaping the rewards of collaboration . We become, in the [*629] words of Pink Floyd, "just another brick in the wall." n84 When we attempt to talk about the need to do such things as internalize costs that are now allowed to remain external to the entities generating the harms and shifting to a system of low or no impact on the Earth's natural systems, we are talking about fundamental, non-voluntary changes in entitlements and lifestyle. Even Alan Greenspan drew severe criticism when he recently suggested that social security benefits should be reduced. n85 Jacques Chirac's party in France has seen its public support plummet due to efforts to reduce social spending. n86 Germans have taken to the streets in the hundreds of thousands to protest their leaders' efforts to develop plans to gain control of the German

welfare stat e. n87 It is impossible to generate the political will that would be required to change the system we have constructed into one that satisfies the demands of sustainability . This is not surprising because the clear message is that we need economic growth . The situation we face is akin to Bangladesh where I was part of a group urging the country's Planning Minister to

take potential environmental harms and ecosystem impacts into greater account in his planning. He responded that the ideas were admirable in theory but that he had to worry about generating jobs and food for 160 million people. He indicated that while he respected the arguments for sustainability his more immediate needs were to ensure jobs and food for Bangladeshis. In a similar context, while teaching international environmental law in St. Petersburg, Russia, my discussion with Russian academic colleagues related to water pollution in the area, radioactive materials dumping, and the raw air pollution from Lada cars running on 76 octane gasoline and other uncontrolled emitters of air pollution that

fouled the air of this most beautiful city. At the end of the course one of my Russian colleagues said, "I found it all fascinating. But you know we have other problems with which we must deal before we can begin to worry about the environment. Perhaps in fifteen years or so we will be ready." I found myself unable to disagree with the speakers in either Bangladesh or Russia. Return to the idea of our inability to generate the political will that would be required to achieve fundamental change if we decided that the Agenda 21 type of sustainable development ideas

were good social and economic strategies . Even if [*630] they were desirable, they are "impossible dreams" because the people and institutions who set policy and decide on actions in the business and governmental arenas will never accept them as guides for behavior or as requirements for decisionmaking . This impossibility exists because we are not free and independent individuals but creatures of habit, dominated by the culture in which we exist . We desire to behave according to the dictates of the powerful systems that govern our lives and culture.

Turn-- Free Trade

(--) Neoliberalism is key to maintain the free market, the value of an individual, and free tradeOlssen 5 – (Professor of Political Theory and Education (May 2005, Mark Olssen, Professor of Political Theory and Education, PhD Political Studies, and Michael A. Peters, Ph.D. Philosophy of Education, M.A., Philosophy, Professor Educational Policy Studies, Adjunct Professor School of Foriegn Studies, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 313–345, “Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism,”) Within higher education neoliberalism has introduced a new mode of regulation or form of governmentality. In order to understand this it is necessary to understand that the welfare liberal mode it replaced maintained fundamentally different premises at the level

of political and economic theory, as well as at the level of philosophical assumption. The central defining characteristic o f this new brand of neoliberalism can be understood at one level as a revival of many of the central

tenets of classical liberalism, particularly classical economic liberalism. The central presuppositions shared include: 1. The self-interested individual: a view of individuals as economically self-interested subjects. In this perspective the individual was represented as a rational optimizer and the best judge of his/her own interests

and needs. 2. Free market economics : the best way to allocate resources and opportunities is through the market. The market is both a more efficient mechanism and a morally superior mechanism. 3. A commitment to laissez-faire: because the free market is a self-regulating order it regulates itself better than the government or any other outside force. In this, neoliberals show a distinct distrust of governmental power and seek to limit state power within a negative conception, limiting its role to the protection of individual rights . 4. A commitment to free trade: involving the abolition of tariffs or subsidies, or any form of state-imposed protection or support, as well as the maintenance of floating exchange rates and ‘open’ economies.

(--) Free trade promotes peace and decreases the likelihood of war—empirically provenGriswold 98 (Daniel, Associated Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, “Peace on Earth, Free Trade for Men,” 31 Dec, http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-31-98.html)

Advocates of free trade have long argued that its benefits are not merely economic. Free trade also encourages people and nations to live in peace with one another. Free

trade raises the cost of war by making nations more economically interdependent. Free trade makes it more profitable for people of one nation to produce goods and services for people of another nation than to conquer them . By promoting communication across borders, trade increases understanding and reduces suspicion toward people in other countries. International trade creates a network of human contacts. Phone calls, emails, faxes and face-to-face meetings are an integral part of commercial relations between people of different nations. This human interaction encourages tolerance and respect between people of different cultures (if not toward protectionist politicians). Ancient writers, expounding what we now call the Universal Economy Doctrine, understood the link between trade and international harmony. The fourth-century writer Libanius declared in his Orations (III), "God did not bestow all products upon all parts of the earth, but distributed His gifts over different regions, to the end that men might cultivate a social relationship because one would have need of the help of another. And so He called commerce into being, that all men might

be able to have common enjoyment of the fruits of the earth, no matter where produced." Open trade makes war a less appealing option for governments by raising its costs. To a nation committed to free trade, war not only means the destruction of life and property. It is also terrible for business , disrupting international commerce and inflicting even greater hardship on the mass of citizens. When the door to trade is open, a nation's citizens can gain access to goods and resources outside their borders by offering in exchange what they themselves can produce relatively well. When the door is closed, the only way to gain access is through military conquest. As the 19th century Frenchman Frederic Bastiat said, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will." History demonstrates the peaceful influence

of trade. The century of relative world peace from 1815 to 1914 was marked by a dramatic expansion of international trade, investment and human migration , illuminated by the example of Great Britain. In

contrast, the rise of protectionism and the downward spiral of global trade in the 1930s aggravated the underlying hostilities that propelled Germany and Japan to make war on their neighbors. In the more than half a century since the end of World War II, no wars have been fought between two nations that were outwardly oriented in their trade policies. In every one of the two dozen or so wars between nations fought since 1945, at least one side was dominated by a nation or nations that did not pursue a policy of free trade.

Capitalism and Globalization are good—it’s responsible for most of the good in the world. The root cause of structural violence is a lack of free markets. Goklany 7 (Indur, scholar who has 25 years of experience working and writing on global and national environmental issues. He has published several peer-reviewed papers and book chapters on an array of issues Author of The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet, Mar. 23, http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html)

Environmentalists and globalization foes are united in their fear that greater population and consumption of energy, materials, and chemicals accompanying economic growth, technological change and free trade—the mainstays of

globalization—degrade human and environmental well-being. Indeed, the 20th century saw the United States’ population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of chemicals by more than 100.

Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease such as cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed byetween eight and eleven years in the past century. Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths have

actually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality has declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today. These improvements haven’t been restricted to the United States. It’s a global phenomenon.

Worldwide, life expectancy has more than doubled, from 31 years in 1900 to 67 years today. India’s and China’s infant mortalities exceeded 190 per 1,000 births in the early 1950s; today they are 62 and 26, respectively. In the developing world, the proportion of the population suffering from chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between 1970 and 2001 despite a 83 percent increase in population. Globally average annual incomes in real dollars have tripled since 1950. Consequently, the proportion of the planet's developing-world

population living in absolute poverty has halved since 1981, from 40 percent to 20 percent. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 percent to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003. Equally important, the world is more literate and better educated than ever. People are freer politically, economically, and socially to pursue their well-being as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of expression. They are more likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb, and property. Social and professional mobility have also never been greater. It’s easier than ever for people across the world to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth. People today work fewer hours and have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time than their ancestors. Man’s environmental record is more complex. The early stages of development can indeed cause some environmental deterioration as societies pursue first-order problems affecting human well-being. These include hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, and lack of education, basic public health services, safe water, sanitation, mobility, and ready sources of energy. Because

greater wealth alleviates these problems while providing basic creature comforts, individuals and societies initially focus on economic development,

often neglecting other aspects of environmental quality. In time, however, they recognize that environmental deterioration reduces their quality of life. Accordingly, they put more of their recently acquired wealth and human capital into developing and implementing cleaner technologies. This brings about an environmental transition via the twin forces of economic development and technological progress, which begin to provide solutions to

environmental problems instead of creating those problems. All of which is why we today find that the richest countries are also the cleanest . And while many developing countries have yet to get past the “green ceiling,” they are nevertheless ahead of where today’s developed countries used to be when they were equally wealthy. The point of transition from "industrial period" to "environmental conscious" continues to fall. For example, the US introduced unleaded gasoline only after its GDP per capita exceeded $16,000. India and China did the same before they

reached $3,000 per capita. This progress is a testament to the power of globalization and the transfer of ideas and knowledge (that lead is harmful, for example). It's also testament to the importance of trade in transferring technology from developed to developing countries—in this case, the technology needed to remove lead from gasoline. This hints at the answer to the question of why some parts of the world have been left behind while the rest of the world has thrived. Why have improvements in well-being stalled in areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world? The proximate cause of improvements in well-being is a “cycle of progress” composed of the mutually reinforcing forces of economic development and technological progress. But that cycle itself is propelled by a web of essential institutions, particularly property rights, free markets, and rule of law. Other important institutions would include science- and technology-based problem-solving founded on skepticism and experimentation; receptiveness to new technologies and ideas; and freer trade in goods, services—most importantly in knowledge and ideas. In short, free and open societies prosper. Isolation, intolerance, and hostility to the free exchange of knowledge, technology, people, and goods breed stagnation or regression.

Neoliberalism Sustains Free Trade and the WTOGeorgia 99(Susan- president of the Transnational Institute “A Short History Of Neo-Liberalism: Twenty Years Of Elite Economics And Emerging Opportunities For Structural Change,” March 24-26 pg online @ http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalism.html)

Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously . Thanks to the debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support to being

quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course neo-liberal ones. The World Trade

Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through

parliaments which had little idea what they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed , at least temporarily. It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at all to citizens.

Turn-- PovertyCapitalism solves global povertyPerry 9 (professor of economics and finance @ Univ of Michigan, M.A. and Ph.D @ George Mason University, MBA in finance from Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota, 11-18-2009 (Mark, “World Poverty Rate Plummets”, http://blog.american.com/?p=7291)

In Kevin Hassett’s National Review article “The Poor Need Capitalism,” he points to a new NBER study,

“Parametric Estimations of the World Distribution of Income,” and writes: The chart [below] draws on a landmark new study by economists Maxim Pinkovskiy and Xavier Sala-i-Martin. The authors set out to study changes in the world distribution of income by gathering data from many different countries. As a byproduct of their work, they are able to count the

number of individuals who live on $1 per day or less, a key measure of poverty. According to their calculations, the number of people living in poverty so defined has plummeted , from 967,574,000 in 1970 to 350,436,000 in

2006, a decrease of a whopping 64 percent. Whence the reduction? The biggest factor is the emergence of middle classes in previously poverty stricken China and India . And the spread of capitalism to other countries has similarly been followed by prosperity . The trend is even more

impressive if one considers that the world population skyrocketed over that time, increasing by 3 billion. If the trend continues for just 40 more years, poverty will have been essentially eradicated from the globe. And

capitalism will have done it. There are those who have argued that the current financial crisis has served as proof that capitalism is a failed ideology. The work of Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin suggests that there are about a billion people whose lives prove otherwise. The NBER paper also finds that the world poverty rate fell by 80 percent, from 26.8 percent in 1970 to only 5.4 percent in 2006 based on the $1 per day poverty measure (see chart below). The study also estimates poverty rates separately for five geographical regions (see chart below), with some pretty amazing results for East Asia (China, Taiwan, and S. Korea), which in 1960 had the highest regional poverty rate in the world by far, at 58.8 percent, compared to 39.9 percent for Africa, 11.6 percent for Latin America, 8.4 percent for MENA (Middle East and North Africa), and 20.1 percent for South Asia. In the 36-year period between 1970 and 2006, the poverty rate in East Asia fell to only 1.7 percent, which is now below all of the other regions: Africa (31.8

percent), Latin America (3.1 percent), MENA (5.2 percent), and South Asia (2.6 percent). poverty3Bottom Line: The 80 percent decrease in the world poverty rate between 1970 and 2006 has to be the greatest reduction in world poverty in such a short time span ever in history , and the 97 percent reduction in the poverty rate of East Asia (from 58.8 percent to 1.7 percent) has to be the most significant improvement in a regional standard of living in history over such a short period . Thanks to

Hassett for pointing out that capitalism is alive and well, and is spreading around the world helping to eliminate poverty.

Turn-- Morality

Neoliberalism leads to a moral structure – personal responsibility and the market Evans 05 – (Prof of public policy 2005, Mark Evans, Professor of Public Policy, Head of the Department of Politics and Provost of Halifax College at the University of York, pg 77, CH4: “Neoliberalism and Policy Transfer in the British Competition State: the Case of Welfare Reform,” Internalizing Globalization: The Rise of Neoliberalism and the Decline of National Varieties of Capitalism, PALGRAVE MACMILLAN: Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire,)

State actors and institutions promote new forms of complex globalization in the attempt to adapt state action to cope more effectively with what they see and portray as global ‘realities’. Hence they seek to make the domestic economy more competitive while accepting the loss of key

traditional social and economic state functions, which were central to the development of the IWS. However, in attempting to meet the challenges of globalization, domestic political and bureaucratic actors increasingly transform the domestic political system into a terrain of conflict underpinned with profound policy debates around alternative responses to globalizatio n (e.g. in Britain the issue of the single European currency). Out of this process of domestic

rearticulation, a particular range of policy options comes to represent a restructured, loosely knit consensus: first on the right (many of whose ‘neoliberal’ members have always believed deeply in the

disarming of the economic state) and then on the left, as traditional alternatives are incrementally eroded. This increasingly

familiar consensus in volves both an extensive process of deregulation, liberalization, and flexibilization not only of public policy but of the state apparatus itself and a refocusing of the state on supporting, maintaining and even promoting transnational and international market processes and governance structures at home. The latter manifests itself in a moral emphasis on personal responsibility, an economic and political acceptance of the correctness of market outcomes , and, paradoxically, an increase in pro-

market regulation and intervention (Cerny, 1990; Vogel, 1996). Thus the rationale for state intervention is aimed not only at sustaining the domestic economy but also at promoting its further integration into an increasingly open global economy in the acceptance that the imperatives of international competitiveness and consumer choice have a higher ideological status than issues of domestic social solidarity.

Economic rationality is ethical and solves war – self-interest motivates individuals to sacrifice some autonomy to produce security and protect the rights of othersAasland ‘9 (Dag, Prof. of Economics @ U of Agder, Norway, Ethics and Economy: After Levinas, pgs. 65-66)

Business ethics , in the sense of ethics for business, illustrates this: its perspective is that of an ‘enlightened self-interest’ where the constraints that are put on the individual, thanks to the ability to see the unfortunate consequences for oneself, postpone the ‘war’ , in a direct or metaphoric sense of the word ( ibid. : 70-71). This enlightened self-interest forms the base not only of the market economy, but also of a social organization and manifestation of human rights , and even of some ethical theories. It is a calculated and voluntary renunciation of one’s own freedom in order to obtain in return security and other common goals ( ibid. : 72). The fact that economic , political and legal theories appeal to enlightened self-interest does not imply , however, that we should discard them . Nor should we reject proclamations of human rights, legal constraints of individual freedom and, for that matter, business ethics, even if they are based on an enlightened self-interest. It is rather the opposite: such institutions and knowledge are indispensable because the primary quality of the enlightened self-interest is that it restricts egocentricity . Our practical reaso n (which was Kant’s words for the reason that governs our acts, where the moral law is embedded as a principle) includes the knowledge that it can be rational to lay certain restrictions on individual freedom. In this way practical reason may postpone (for an indefinite time) violence and murder among people . This has primarily been the raison-d’être of politics and the state, but it is today taken over more and more by corporate organizations , as expressed in the new term for business ethics, as corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship (see chapter 2). Thanks to this ‘postponement of violence’ provided by politics and economic rationality, people may unfold their freedom within the laws and regulations set up by societ y (Burggraeve, 2003: 77).

Turn-- Environment

Neolib creates conditions that allows for environmental sustainability.Griswold 01 (Daniel. Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, Masters in economics from London School of Economics. 8/2/1. http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-015b.pdf)

Expanding trade is not merely compatible with high standards of environmental quality but can lead directly to their improvement. As a country sees its standard of living rise through economic liberalization and trade expansion, its industry can more readily afford to control emissions. Its citizens have more to spend, above what they need for subsistence, on the “luxury good” of improved environmental quality. And as economic growth creates an expanding, better- educated middle class, the political demand rises for pollution abatement. That explains why the most stringent environmental laws in the world today are found in developed countries that are relatively open to trade. Development by itself can have a mixed impact on the environment. All else being equal, an economy that produces more of exactly the same goods and services in exactly the same way will produce more pollution. But development changes not only the size of an economy but also its composition and its level of technology. More sophisticated technology can mean cleaner production processes and more affordable and effective pollution abatement. And as nations progress to higher stages of development, they tend to move away from more resource-intensive activities such as mining, agriculture, and heavy industry and into light manufacturing, information technology, and services. A study by the OECD on globalization and the environment found: “There is some evidence that, once a country begins to industrialize, trade liberalization helps to make the structure of its economy less pollution-intensive than in those countries whose economies remain relatively closed. In particular, freer trade seems to promote the transition from heavy resource-processing sectors to light manufacturing ones (at least at middle income levels).”

Neoliberalism does not cause a race to the bottom with environmental regulationsCato 02(Center for Trade Policy Studies. 2002. http://www.freetrade.org/faqs/faqs.html)

While this is a frequently heard complaint, there is no evidence of such a "race to the bottom." In fact, the opposite is true: expanding trade and rising incomes tend to promote higher social standards. As incomes rise in developing countries, their people and governments are able to devote more resources to protecting the environment and lifting labor standards, while an expanding middle class begins to expect and demand improvements in the environment and working conditions. Empirical evidence shows that as nations reach middle and upper income levels, their environmental policies and indicators improve. Working conditions also improve and rates of child labor fall. Foreign investment in developing countries contributes to this "race to the top" by creating better paying jobs and by "importing" better business practices and work rules. Contrary to the "race to the bottom" myth, low wages and lax environmental rules are not an irresistible magnet for foreign investment. Foreign investors seek property rights protection, a functioning legal system, a well-educated workforce, profitable markets, and

sufficient infrastructure. That is why most of the world's foreign investment flows between rich, high-standard economies.

Globalization and Neoliberal integration provide the best method for environmental protections – local solutions will not sufficeChen 2000 – (Professor of Law @ Minnesota University Jim Chen, Professor of Law and Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, 2000-2001, University of Minnesota Law School. “PAX MERCATORIA: GLOBALIZATION AS A SECOND CHANCE AT "PEACE FOR OUR TIME"”. November/December 2000. 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 217.)

Freedom to travel also has an environmental dimension. Aggressive environmental protection safeguards the freedom of movement by severing decisions to travel or to move from variations in environmental quality. n105 The same Commerce Clause that protects trade among the states enables Congress to address environmental problems that affect multiple states or otherwise impair the movement of goods and persons in interstate commerce. This connection becomes all the more critical in an era of unprecedented constitutional pressure on federal environmental law. n106 Civil liberties of the first order wither when the ordinary citizen "must be afraid to drink freely from his [or her] country's rivers and streams." n107 In this sense, official complicity in environmental degradation violates the international human [*235] rights norm against "arbitrary ... exile." n108 " Across-the-board globalism " n109 is the best way of coordinating free trade and environmental protection as "complementary" policies. n110 Admittedly, simultaneously advocating free trade and environmental integrity typically earns a deluxe suite at the "very small hotel" that will be hosting the next "global convention of rabid free trade environmentalists." n111 Yet this jarring juxtaposition is unavoidable in a world of falling frontiers. The creation of "transboundary communities" causes "environmental interconnection" and in turn the "inevitable" abandonment of "localism in all spheres." n112 Strictly localist solutions will not suffice; "haphazard local encouragement" cannot replace coordinated responses to "diffuse, cross-jurisdictional" problems such as mobile source emissions and nonpoint-source runoff . n113 Environmental integrity as a human right, so central in the localist critique of globalization, is more effectively advanced by free trade than by protectionism . In the absence of clearly defined, consistently enforced trade rules, "environmental standards" rapidly become "especially attractive candidates for disguised protectionism." n114 Standards as vague as multifunctionality [*236] or sustainability are "far more susceptible to political capture" than specific and transparent environmental measures. n115 Perhaps no controversy depicts this dynamic as vividly as the transatlantic tussle over beef from hormone-fed cattle. n116 One attractive alternative to parochial, intrinsically protectionist measures lies in the adoption of uniform global standards. n117 That project, however, presumes a continued commitment to integration rather than isolation in matters affecting the global economy and the global environment.

Turn-- Structural ViolenceNeolib and trade liberalization solve structural violence – best studies proveChen 2000 – (Professor of Law @ Minnesota UniversityJim Chen, Professor of Law and Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, 2000-2001, University of Minnesota Law School. “PAX MERCATORIA: GLOBALIZATION AS A SECOND CHANCE AT "PEACE FOR OUR TIME"”. November/December 2000. 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 217)

The antiglobalization movement has made some extraordinary claims. Let us transplant a precept of natural science into this social realm: n177 extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. n178 From Seattle to Prague, protesters have argued that the organs of international economic law conspire with multinational corporations to sap national and local governments of legitimate power, to destabilize global security, and to poison workplaces as well as ecosystems. n179 That case has not met even the most generous standard of proof. The antiglobalization movement has failed to refute the following: Dramatic improvements in welfare at every wealth and income [*246] level. n180 Since 1820 global wealth has expanded tenfold, thanks largely to technological advances and the erosion of barriers to trade. n181 The world economic order, simply put, is lifting people out of poverty. According to the World Bank, the percentage of the world's population living in extreme poverty fell from 28.3 to 23.4% between 1987 and 1998 . n182 (The World Bank defines extreme and absolute poverty according to "reference lines set at $ 1 and $ 2 per day" in 1993 terms, adjusted for "the relative purchasing power of currencies across countries.") n183 A more optimistic study has concluded that "the share of the world's population earning less than US$ 2 per day shrank by more than half" between 1980 and 1990, "from 34 to 16.6 percent." n184 In concrete terms, "economic growth associated with globalization" over the course of that decade helped lift 1.4 billion people out of absolute poverty. n185 Whatever its precise magnitude, this improvement in global welfare has taken place because of, not in spite of, flourishing world trade. n186

Neoliberalism improves human welfare – best studiesGerring and Thacker 08 – (Professors of Political Science and IR @ Boston University John Gerring, Boston University Department of Political Science and Strom C. Thacker, Boston University Department of International Relations. “Do Neoliberal Economic Policies Kill or Save Lives?”. Bussiness and Politics Volume 10, Issue 3 2008. http://people.bu.edu/jgerring/documents/IMRpolicy.pdf)

While far from exhaustive, the robustness tests undertaken in this study suggest that the main findings are not likely to be an artifact of arbitrary model specifications or estimation techniques. On balance, there appears to be a strong relationship between neoliberal economic policies and improved human welfare, as measured by infant mortality rates. It is important to note that this relationship persists even while controlling for level of economic development. This is an interesting finding, since we tend to think of neoliberal economic policies operating upon human development primarily in an indirect manner. According to proponents, market-friendly policies should enhance growth, which should, in turn, improve human wellbeing. The fact that, independent of their effect of economic development, these neoliberal economic policies are still significantly associated with improved human welfare suggests that an even stronger overall causal relationship may be at work. If, that is, neoliberal policies have a tendency to

promote long-term growth, then we may presume that their net effect on IMR is even stronger than measured by coefficients on key “neoliberal” variables in Tables 1 and 2, given that economic development is, itself, a major factor in the reduction of infant mortality. We do not attempt to model the precise nature of this indirect causal relationship because this would require strong assumptions about neoliberalism’s causal effect on growth performance, a contentions topic that lies beyond the scope of this study.

Neoliberalism is associated with better human welfare – solves infant mortality and economic mobilityTracy et al. ‘9 (MELISSA TRACY, Doctoral student, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, MARGARET E. KRUK, Assistant Professor of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, CHRISTINE HARPER, Research Assistant, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, SANDRO GALEA, Professor of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Director, Center for Global Health, University of Michigan, “Neo-liberal economic practices and population health: a cross-national analysis,1980—2004”. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2009. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64035/1/Tracy_neo%20liberal_2009.pdf)

Three central findings emerge from our results. Access to sound money had the single-most robust association with lower under-five mortality across countries in all analyses. Protection of property rights was also associated with lower under-five mortality in all countries in the more parsimonious analyses (not adjusting for income inequality, social capital or female literacy). Both these policy areas can theoretically be linked with better economic prospects for households that may, in turn, lead to improved health outcomes. Among more developed countries (i.e. those with average incomes above approximately US $3000), less market regulation was also associated with lower child and adult male mortality. It is plausible that in these countries, the majority of which already have basic infrastructure and other determinants of health (e.g. closed sewers, treated water systems, quality health care) in place and thus relatively good population health, a more robust private enterprise may further improve health.

Turn-- WarNeolib solves war and collapse causes it – historical evidence and studies proveTures ‘3 – (Associate Professor of Political Science @ LaGrange College- John A. Tures, Associate Professor of Political Science at LaGrange College, 2003, “ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND CONFLICT REDUCTION: EVIDENCE FROM THE 1970S, 1980S, AND 1990S”, Cato Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj22n3/cj22n3-9.pdf)

The last three decades have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of market-based reforms and the profusion of economic freedom in the international system . This shift in economic policy has sparked a debate about whether free markets are superior to state controls. Numerous studies have compared the neoliberal and statist policies on issues of production capacity, economic growth, commercial vol- umes, and egalitarianism. An overlooked research agenda, however, is the relationship between levels of economic freedom and violence within countries. Proponents of the statist approach might note that a strong gov- ernment can bend the market to its will, directing activity toward policies necessary to achieve greater levels of gross domestic product and growth. By extracting more resources for the economy, a pow- erful state can redistribute benefits to keep the populace happy. Higher taxes can also pay for an army and police force that intimidate people. Such governments range from command economies of totali- tarian systems to autocratic dictators and military juntas. Other eco- nomically unfree systems include some of the authoritarian “Asian tigers.” A combination of historical evidence, modern theorists, and statis- tical findings, however, has indicated that a reduced role for the state in regulating economic transactions is associated with a decrease in internal conflicts. Countries where the government dominates the commercial realm experience an increase in the level of domestic violence. Scholars have traced the history of revolutions to explain the relationship between statism and internal upheavals. Contemporary authors also posit a relationship between economic liberty and peace. Statistical tests show a strong connection between economic freedom and conflict reduction during the past three decades .

History is on our side – globalization and neoliberal economic policies has limited major conflicts.Gresser 07 ( Edward Gresser, Director of the Project on Trade and Global Markets @ Progressive Policy Institute. "Is 'Free Trade' Working?". Testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, Trade and Tourism. April 18, 2007. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=206&contentid=254256)

Most important, the crisis of the 1930s has never been repeated and economic integration seems to be fulfilling its hopes as a guarantor of peace. No two great powers have come into conflict since the 1960s -- the longest such period I know of; and a major study last year found wars rarer than at any time since the 1820s, suggesting that this is in part because the world is more open: "an open global trading regime means it is nearly always cheaper to buy resources from overseas than to use force to acquire them."

Every relevant example in the last thirty years suggests that neoliberal market policies dramatically decrease violenceTures ‘3 – (Associate Professor of Political Science @ LaGrange College- John A. Tures, Associate Professor of Political Science at LaGrange College, 2003, “ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND CONFLICT REDUCTION: EVIDENCE FROM THE 1970S, 1980S, AND 1990S”, Cato Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj22n3/cj22n3-9.pdf)

The last three decades have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of market-based reforms and the profusion of economic freedom in the international system . This shift in economic policy has sparked a debate about whether free markets are superior to state controls. Numerous studies have compared the neoliberal and statist policies on issues of production capacity, economic growth, commercial vol- umes, and egalitarianism. An overlooked research agenda, however, is the relationship between levels of economic freedom and violence within countries. Proponents of the statist approach might note that a strong gov- ernment can bend the market to its will, directing activity toward policies necessary to achieve greater levels of gross domestic product and growth. By extracting more resources for the economy, a pow- erful state can redistribute benefits to keep the populace happy. Higher taxes can also pay for an army and police force that intimidate people. Such governments range from command economies of totali- tarian systems to autocratic dictators and military juntas. Other eco- nomically unfree systems include some of the authoritarian “Asian tigers.” A combination of historical evidence, modern theorists, and statis- tical findings, however, has indicated that a reduced role for the state in regulating economic transactions is associated with a decrease in internal conflicts. Countries where the government dominates the commercial realm experience an increase in the level of domestic violence. Scholars have traced the history of revolutions to explain the relationship between statism and internal upheavals. Contemporary authors also posit a relationship between economic liberty and peace. Statistical tests show a strong connection between economic freedom and conflict reduction during the past three decades .

Turn-- DemocracyNeoliberalism spurs democracy – both from internal demands and external rewards.Chen 2000 – (Professor of Law @ Minnesota University- Jim Chen, Professor of Law and Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, 2000-2001, University of Minnesota Law School. “PAX MERCATORIA: GLOBALIZATION AS A SECOND CHANCE AT "PEACE FOR OUR TIME"”. November/December 2000. 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 217)

Globalization advances democracy not only by raising overall wealth, but also by improving the political climate within nations. The ability of multinational corporations and skilled workers to adopt "fight or flight" strategies encourages governments to adopt transparent policies and to broaden political participation. n140 Businesses and nongovernmental organizations respond by cooperating with the government to form "transnational epistemic communities." n141 Even where they are despised as scourges against local businesses, multinational corporations introduce moral values in countries that have yet to realize globalization's full benefits . n142 At the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, even as unstable governments plunge into kleptocracy and anti-Western terrorists flourish, n143 nongovernmental organizations have stepped into the resulting power vacuum in order to help police the morals of globalized society. n144 Global markets for capital and labor can discipline rogue governments swiftly and effectively. n145 They do so by carrot and by stick. First, the carrot: "states keep their promises" because "they receive payoffs" within the community of nations "when other states successfully rely on their actions." n146 Because global [*241] markets ostracize states that fail to secure and maintain "civilized" status, national governments still tend to pay "lip service" to international law in order if only "to avoid the inference that they are rogue states." n147 Only "serious intent" to comply with the rules of international monetary cooperation and free trade can secure "good standing in the international economic community." n148 The global capital markets measure compliance with these norms quite precisely through the "interest-rate premium" that investors "demand for buying developing-country bonds instead of U.S. Treasurys." n149 In the long run, compliance with globalization's underlying legal structure fosters an "across-the-board, indivisible obligation to heed the rule of law." n150 "Repeated compliance gradually becomes habitual obedience" as international law "penetrates ... [local] legal systems." n151 Pax mercatoria, in short, becomes domesticated as part of national law. n152Economic liberalization ushers in political freedom.Obhof ‘3 – (J.D. from Yale Law School- Larry J. Obhof, J.D., Yale Law School, 2003; B.A., Ohio University, 2000. “WHY GLOBALIZATION? A LOOK AT GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND ITS EFFECTS”. University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy. Fall 2003)

These results should come as no surprise. Although globalization per se need not expand freedoms, increasing economic liberalization almost certainly does. It has long been known that one of the greatest benefits of a capitalist system is its tendency to diffuse power among individual decision makers, allowing for greater individual autonomy than any other system. Under the invisible hand of the market, individual decision-making replaces centralized authority as the guiding force of society; the result of a market economy is more autonomy for individuals, and hence more freedom. This occurs almost out of logical necessity: capitalism takes power away from the masses, in the form of the state or some other authority, and disperses it among individuals. Freedom of action in the economic sphere underpins political and civil freedom. n132 As F.A. Hayek stated in 1944, "political feeling is

meaningless without economic freedom," because economic freedom is the prerequisite for any other freedom. n133 Economic freedom allows us to choose how we spend our time, what we do with the resources we earn, and indeed, how we spend our lives . In a capitalist system, individuals answer these questions for themselves. In any other system, individuals face coercion from others. The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce; political freedom can therefore be defined as the absence of coercion. n134 Removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority eliminates the source of coercive power. n135 Market forces tend to eliminate the concentration of power and disperse whatever [*115] power cannot be eliminated. n136 Hence economic freedom is a check on political power. Capitalism may not be a sufficient condition for freedom, but it is a necessary one. Market economies also offer incentives for treating others well. Capitalism is itself an ethical economic arrangement - it is generally in the long-term interests of people in a market economy to act ethically . n137 There are always unfortunate exceptions, but most capitalists will find it beneficial "to act with restraint and in a way which best serves the interests of their clients or customers." n138 This system promotes values such as entrepreneurship, tolerance, and willingness to compromise, which are necessary to anyone wanting to make money in a free economy. n139

Turn-- HegNeolib’s key to heg---makes the global order stable and cooperative Edelman 10 (Eric S- former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, was Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, 2010, “Understanding America’s Contested Primacy,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments)

Huntington has pointed out that US primacy at the end of the Cold War was important for two other reasons. The first was that no other power in the international system could “make comparable contributions to international order and stability .” The second was that the perceived failure of the Soviet model left the United States “as the only major power whose national identity is defined by a set of universal political and economic values .” Because these values were not central to the national identity of

other powers they did not have the same drive as the U nited States to promote them in international affairs. This willingness to provide certain global public goods that increased the chances of international coop eration was also acknowledged by Robert Jervis, who was otherwise

skeptical about the effort to maintain US primacy. It also facilitated acceptance of US primacy and the unipolar system by other countries. Those observations remain valid today.24¶ Although the point remains

controversial it seems apparent that America, while clearly creating some resentments with its policies, continues to be seen (particularly by governments) as relatively benign in its interactions with other powers.

America shares a fundamental view of the world rooted in the neoliberal orthodoxy of free markets , open societies, and democratic institutions that emerged as a consensus prescription for peace

and prosperity after the collapse of communism. This “transnational liberalism” inclines national elites to see a broad confluence of interest with the United States and reduces their tendency to try and counterbalance

American power. As the guarantor of the international world economy and a provider of security and

stability because of its alliance system, the United States provides global public goods which others cannot provide. In that sense the question that Stanley Hoffman posed some years ago of whether the United States should

pursue primacy or world order seems to be a false dichotomy. As Michael Mandelbaum has persuasively argued, to the degree that there is world order , it exists because American primacy, combined with the triumph of neoliberal ideas , has allowed the United States to provide governmental functions to the rest of the world, chief among them being the maintenance of the global commons — air, sea, and space.25