For four years now I have read articles and books that attribute much of the world’s suffering to the so-called neo-liberal project. According to these authors a process or marketization took place on a global scale, starting roughly in 1980 (The elections of Thatcher and Reagan are key). These reforms, away from the statism and industrial policy that was common in the 1970s, have lead to high levels of structural violence that have targeted the poorest people on earth.

I remain unconvinced.

I know, I know, that is an incredibly arrogant thing to say, but I will remain unconvinced until someone points me to a paper, book, study, or report that shows that developing nations did indeed shift to market-based economies over the past 30 years.

For example, I have a difficult time classifying Brazil as “free market.” Remember, the accusation is that the world has shifted to laissez-faire system. That is not a straw man, that’s what the book I read yesterday said. And if an author is going to posit that the poverty in the favelas is due to lassiez-faire policies shouldn’t they first define lassiez-faire and then prove that Brazil has realigned itself along these lines?

I say that - among other issues - property rights are not protected in Brazil, especially for the poor¹. And any economic/political system with weak and/or non-functioning property rights cannot accurately be called free-market or capitalist.

Maybe it is better to say Brazil has gone from statism to statism lite.

Or maybe it is better to say that Brazil has adopted the language of the market without truly reforming. Politicians often use the rhetoric of markets and capital to defend policies that are anything by market-oriented². I really wonder, are the policies themselves so different from when politicians used the language of industrial policy to defend their actions?

I admit I should read more or find funding to do some fieldwork to better understand what is happening on the ground. However, I am not the one making accusations so the burden of proof does not lie with me. And evidence, rather than invective, is in short supply.

One final note, I am not in any way denying the existence of structural violence that continues the oppression of the world’s poor. It has become far to popular in some circles to say that things are not that bad in nations where incomes have doubled from $1 / day to $2 / day, because - hey! - incomes doubled. Nonsense. What I am questioning is existence of a global shift to neo-liberalism.