Whither democracy in a neoliberal European Union: ‘European Nightmare’ in the making?

(1)

Janin Rooijakkers

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid University of Amsterdam

22.971 Words (excl. footnotes and bibliography)

Whither democracy in a neoliberal European Union:

(2)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Introduction 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ... 3

Chapter 1. Notions and Theories: the question of neoliberalism and democracy ... 9

1.1 The concept of neoliberalism and neoliberal political thought ... 10

1.2. Criticising the neoliberal political reason ... 14

1.2.A. Inequality and its implications ... 15

1.2.B. De-democratisation ... 17

1.2.C. Legitimacy crisis and political vacuum ... 19

Conclusion ... 21

Chapter 2. The case of the European Union: neoliberalism and de-democratisation in the EU ... 23

2.1. Neoliberalism in the European Union ... 23

2.1.A. A brief history ... 23

2.1.B. Debate on the current situation ... 25

2.2. De-democratisation, inequality, and the legitimacy crisis in the European Union ... 30

2.2.A. The democratic deficit and de-democratisation ... 30

2.2.B. Inequality ... 34

2.2.C. The legitimacy crisis and the political vacuum ... 35

Conclusion ... 37

Chapter 3. European nightmare? Emerging ideologies and processes ... 39

3.1. The further normalisation and institutionalisation of neoliberal governance ... 39

3.1.A. The de-politicisation of process and policy ... 42

3.1.B. The formalisation and institutionalisation of neoliberalism ... 44

3.2. The ‘Social enterprise’ Europe ... 47

3.2.A. The active creation af a single demos ... 48

3.2.B. The idea of ‘Normative Power Europe’ (NPE) ... 51

Conclusion ... 55

Conclusion: a European alternative? ... 57

(3)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Introduction 3 INTRODUCTION

‘On the one hand, both democracy, apparently spreading through 'waves of democratization', and capitalism, as the outcome of economic globalization, seem to be without alternative. On the other hand, current capitalism is highly crisis-ridden and democracy, at least in Europe, witnesses strong signs of disaffection.’1

- Peter Wagener

The word ‘democracy’ was originally derived from the Greek ‘dēmokratia’, consisting of the words ‘dēmos’ and ‘kratia’ or ‘kratos’ meaning as much as ‘the people, the masses’ and ‘rule, power, authority, strength’. Though seemingly relatively straightforward in its meaning, democracy, or the rule by the people, has been at the core of many debates, discussions, fights and wars between individuals, groups and nations over the last decades. This too has historically been the case within Europe, and can arguably also be said in the case of the European Union. Being a project initiated by high-level government officials of a limited composition and number of states, the fundamental and founding idea of the European project was that of ‘peace through economic integration’. From its outset, the European integration project has been seen as struggling to also link itself to ‘democracy’ and its positive connotations. To many it seemed that in its core, democracy was not the EU’s first point of focus or priority. They regard the relation between the European Union and ‘democracy’ as a problematic one and have called the democratic character of the European Union into question many times.

The argument that the European Union was not founded with democracy as its focus point is an interesting and potentially problematic one. However, it also seems to be only one of many reasons why the Union’s democracy or lack thereof has been called into question. Other explanations have been sought in arguments that emphasize the seemingly endless attacks from outside powers classified as less democratic, or in the argument that the Union comprises of democratically badly structured institutions. Furthermore, part of its questionable reputation on democracy adversely is said to come from the observation that for a large part of the Unions inhabitants, the question of democracy in the EU does not automatically result in raising questions as to ‘how’ and ‘why’. They have been regarded as a group that feels out of touch with the Union and its institutions. For those who do feel that the question of democracy in the European Union is a pertinent one, there are many explanations as to the ‘how’ and ‘why’. However, amongst this group there has perhaps been relatively little attention to one of the more underexposed or underexplored

1

Wagner, Peter (2011), ‘The democratic crisis of capitalism: Reflections on political and economic modernity in Europe’,

(4)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Introduction 4 explanations. This is the question to what extent the perceived democratic deficit of the contemporary European Union is (partially) a consequence of its own policies.

One of the particularly influential sets of policies that may have had a substantial effect on the European Union’s democratic character, are those policies that are often referred to as neoliberal. Although scholars have not reached a conclusive agreement on the origin of the EU’s neoliberal character, nor on the extent of its reach or on the form this neoliberal character takes, many scholars have argued that at least a large part of the European Union’s policy making process can be described as neoliberal oriented.2 The neoliberal orientation would be particularly visible in the large number of policy areas in which the EU is active and prioritizing the optimal working of markets. At the same time, one could argue that the Union is also deriving its legitimacy from these market objectives. To find a quick source that seems to underscore this, one need only look at the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in which the economic priority and focus seem apparent. For many policy areas the market rationality in the form of optimally working markets seems to be the focal point, while other considerations are being given significantly less weight.

Neoliberalism and neoliberal policies are, in turn, often associated with socioeconomic processes. They are addressed and criticised for containing a number of intrinsically (morally) ‘bad’ features and are, in general, often associated with negative socioeconomic consequences. In the eyes of its critics, the negative consequences that arise from neoliberal policies could feature any of the following: the single focus on economics; high individualism and egocentrism; the declining social climate; the reduction of government interference and involvement and subsequent abandonment of parts of society; the growing disregard for culture and history; the dismantling of (traditional) norms and values; the (indifference for) rapid climate change and growing inequality. Perhaps less recognised by the general public are the potential consequences neoliberal policies could have on the democratic value of a state system. Taking these into account, there seem to be a number of reasons behind neoliberal policies having such negative connotations.

A particularly interesting reason may be linked to a number of political theorists who analyse and exemplify how neoliberalism contains de-democratising features. Amongst the forerunners of this group is political scientist Wendy Brown. Brown has first in her article ‘The End of Liberal Democracy’ and later in her book Undoing the Demos made the argument that neoliberal policies and neoliberal rationalities fundamentally alter and undermine core democratic values and practices.3 She does so by amongst other things explaining that having the optimal working of the

2

For example: Angela Wigger, Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Chris Shore, Christoph Hermann, David Geber, Hubert Buch-Hansen and Owen Parker.

3

Wendy Brown does so in: Brown, W. (2006), ‘American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization’, Political Theory, Vol. 34 No. 6, p. 690 – 714.

(5)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Introduction 5 market economy as a supreme goal, makes a number of figureheads of democracy less important or even subservient. As the optimal working of the market economy is the goal, other commodities should be seen in the light of this goal, or be at the mercy of this goal so to say. For instance, the free and uncontrolled workings of the media or the political system are less significant to enable the proper working of the market and are thus given second place priority. However, crucial in this respect is that Brown goes further than merely questioning the influence that neoliberal policies have on a democratic system. She has also been seeking to address the question of how, even despite their often recognised bad reputation, neoliberal policies are able or even enabled to undermine and hollow the democratic system. Analysing the de-democratising effects of neoliberal policies, she has been considering the consequences of a possible intersection with other political rationalities. Could it be possible that neoliberal policies pave the way for other potentially anti-democratic political rationalities; or that neoliberal policies are enabled by (the distraction provided by) other political rationalities? Taking her cues from the political situation in the post-911 United States of America, Brown has studied the case of the intersection of the political rationality of neoliberalism and conservative politics. Seeing links between neoliberal policies and conservative politics in the example of the States, she looks at their mutual disregard for democracy and their subsequent mutual enablement to discard many core values of democratic systems and calls this enabling link or coupling the ‘American Nightmare’.

Following the European Union’s history, its democratic character has often been called into question. At the same time part of what is claimed to be the Union’s intrinsic character is sometimes labelled as neoliberal. In turn, the political rationality of neoliberalism and neoliberal policies have also been put aside as fostering or encouraging non-democratic policies. Are these assumptions enough to assume that there could also be a relation between the Union’s questionable democratic reputation and its possible partial neoliberal character? This thesis seeks to answer this question by determining the relation between neoliberal policies and non-democratic measures. Or in other words: the link between the European Union’s democratic deficit and its perceived neoliberal nature. Could there be interaction between the two? If so, how have the EU’s neoliberal policies affected its democratic standing and how have they been able to do this? Picking the question apart, this thesis first seeks to answer the theoretical question of how neoliberal policies and neoliberal political rationalities are potentially undermining democracy. What is and can be seen as ‘neoliberal’ and how does it affect democracy? How (if at all) can neoliberal policies have affected the democratic character of the Union? And if they have, are there any other political rationalities that have legitimised this or have even replaced the need for legitimisation? In other words: how did this come into effect and how was it maintained? Is there, as Brown depicts to be the situation in the US, a

(6)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Introduction 6 ‘European Nightmare’, in which potential anti-democratic neoliberal policies are linked and enabled by coupling them with other political rationalities?

In order to answer these questions in a clear and manageable way, this thesis will comprise three chapters, which will each centre around an overarching question. The first chapter will seek to find an answer to the question of what can be seen as neoliberal and neoliberal policy, and how these policies could potentially influence or even undermine democracy. In order to answer these theoretical questions, the chapter contains a general theoretical framework on the global concept of neoliberal political thought, its characteristics, critics and dangers. This theoretical framework set up by analysing a large variety of academic texts. The chapter will begin with an initial section that provides an outline of the global concept of neoliberal political thought, highlighting some of its believed characteristics. Though a large number of academic literature on neoliberalism in fact already exists, there is much ambiguity and discord as to a clear meaning of the term. Hence, a multitude of notions by different authors will be compared in order to find a number of common characteristics. The second subsection of the first chapter will focus on neoliberal’s main critiques. This will start with analysing some of the ways in which it could contribute to the devaluation of several figureheads of democracy and thus have de-democratising effects. The second part of this chapter will then entail a short delineation of one of its main critiques: the intensification and even encouragement of inequality. Lastly, the chapter will look at one of the potential risks of the two previous sections: a political democratic vacuum stemming from a legitimacy default. Here, the example posed as the ‘American Nightmare’ by Wendy Brown will be set out in order to explain the material.

The second chapter will then continue on this framework but focus its scope on the European Union, its potential neoliberal character and subsequent potential hazards. It will base around the question: to what extend or in what way is the neoliberal theory believed to contribute (or not) to the de-democratisation of the EU’s integration project? In order to answer this question, it will follow the first chapter and will aim to round up the theoretical framework by placing together, using and analysing a number of academic text. However, as the first chapter focussed on the broad lines of this framework, the second chapter will deviate from this in the sense that it will try to narrow its focus and also look at some practical examples. In order to do this, the main question will be divided into smaller question, firstly asking in what way academics believe neoliberalism in the EU originated. Second will be the analyses of a set of opinions from different authors on what characteristics neoliberalism takes in the context of the EU. Here, the distinction between the ‘special’ character on the one hand, and ‘following the global trend’ will be looked at. In this light the thesis asks whether or not the (global) neoliberal trend has been halted or damaged by the economic crisis. Ensuing will

(7)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Introduction 7 be a subsection on the way in which the political rationality of neolibealism can in that case be seen manifesting itself in the EU. This will be looked at by analysing the extent to which it is or is not resulting in a visible erosion of democratic values. It will do so by way of putting forward a number of examples that may be at the bases of a potential de-democratising trend in the Union. As the second chapter will follow the set up of the first chapter, there will also be a short section of inequality in the EU. By way of conclusion the potential decline in legitimacy and subsequent vacuum, referring back to the theory as laid down by Wendy Brown, will be touched.

The third and last chapter will in turn analyse the current (political) set up of the European Union by looking at some real life examples of policy an process in the EU. It will centre around the question: to what extend or in what way are there other rationalities at play in the European Union that may amplify or fill the potentially present political and democratic vacuum? It will pose two cases to which a short overview of possible new standards (in the form of ideologies or rationalities) are linked. What are the current trends and how can they be linked to the democratic character of the Union? This thesis will bring forward firstly the very topical development of the further de-politicisation and institutionalisation of the neoliberal thought. This is discussed through the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. The thesis will then bring forward the ‘social’ character of the European Union through the case of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Here, the idea of an active creation of a united European demos; a European citizen that would be (more) willing to transfer its loyalty from the nation state to the European Union is questioned. Can the EU be seen as a force of social democratic normative power? The thesis will in its last part use the example and theory of several authors including Ian Manners, Chris Shore and Richard Whitman, who have introduced the theory of ‘Normative Power Europe’.

The thesis will therefore engage in the debate around the actual features of a declining democratic climate. It will furthermore also look at the reversed; the signs that, adversely, proper attention is in fact placed on the (desired) democratic nature of the European Union. Thus, in addition to the question in whether, and in what way, the democratic nature of the EU is compromised by the neoliberal nature of that same Union, there is also attention to the question in what way this may be counteracted, or perhaps what development there is to stop the de-democratisation of the European Union. Or in other words: what might fill the potentially present political and democratic vacuum? The answers to these questions are seeking to offer a perspective on the EU’s democratic future with or after neoliberalism. Can it be that the European Union is on a path following the same logic as Wendy Brown’s American Nightmare? Or is there no such connection within the EU and are we able to move past the possible darker anti-democratic trends? These questions are particularly relevant and important to consider in the light of recent events in

(8)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Introduction 8 the Union. The large scale refugee crisis is making people doubt the good workings of the EU and questioning its future. The Brexit debate has furthermore exposed the deep distrust and suspicion of many people inside and outside Great Britain towards the European Union. The Union is by many people in the latter debate thought of as non-democratic, authoritarian and non-transparent. It has accumulated many a negative connotation and has apparently built up enough resistance to make the majority of a 40+ years Member state decide they want out. But in reality, is it really that bad? Especially now that the character and functioning of the Union in its entirety have been called into question, it is important to look at its origins, its rationales, motives and actions. It is important to look at the consequences of its own policy and to look ahead towards its future. Is the European Union doomed to deteriorate and crumble down, or is there still hope? Should we start warning our neighbours about the big dark European Nightmare, or can the European Union still awaken to a good night’s rest?

(9)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Chapter 1. Notions and Theories: the question of neoliberalism and democracy

9 CHAPTER 1. NOTIONS AND THEORIES: the question of neoliberalism and democracy

This thesis studies how the European Union’s neoliberal policies could have affected its democratic character and how the potential subsequent democratic deficit has been filled. Breaking down this elaborate main question, the first step is to ask, and research, in what way neoliberal political rationalities and subsequent neoliberal policies could potentially undermine a democracy? The first part of this chapter will try to seek an answer to the later question through first asking itself how neoliberalism is seen; what falls under the notion ‘neoliberal’ and what does it imply? In order to answer these theoretical questions, the chapter will seek to analyse relevant theories through available accompanying literature. A vast amount of literature on the concept of the political rationality of neoliberalism does already exists, but as of yet, only a relatively small amount of this literature in fact focuses solely on the literal meaning of the neoliberal concept. Rather, a large number of texts partially describe the concept: only targeting certain characteristics. In order to answer then the above questions on the concept of neoliberalism, this thesis will look at, and bundle, a selection of existing literature. Throughout this keeping in mind the question of what overlapping characteristics can be identified in the different theories? The purpose is to highlight a number of different characteristics of the neoliberal thought through this examination of theoretical data.

Following this introductory part, the ensuing second subsection will centre around the question: in what way can democracy be potentially undermined by neoliberal political rationalities and thereof arising neoliberal policies? Or, what are the potentially undermining factors? These questions lead up to a crucial point, for if the neoliberal policies have such potentially negatively affecting consequences, then how can they exist or even be executed? In order to address these questions, the relationship between neoliberalism and the state system of constitutional democracies will be looked at through exploring relevant literature and examples. It is at this point that the example of Wendy Brown’s American Nightmare will be introduced. As will be explained in greater detail, neoliberal reason in general does not attach much importance to values that are considered to epitomise a democracy - for example accountability or equality. The (absence of the) later will be set out first. The following part of this section will then continue on subsequent figureheads for democracy that are weakened, as well as discussing some specific views of different authors on this anti-democratic tendency of neoliberalism. The final part of chapter one will entail a sneak peek into some possible implications of the consequences as described in the section prior to it. Thus, what does ‘neoliberal’ entail? What are its potential negative effects on democracy and what could be the possible implications?

(10)

10 1.1 THE CONCEPT OF NEOLIBERALISM AND NEOLIBERAL POLITICAL THOUGHT

“Neoliberalism seems to mean many different things depending on one’s vantage point”4

-Aihwa Ong

The concept of ‘neoliberalism’ seems to be a very complicated, multifaceted one. A quick analysis of the term itself suggests a ‘simple’ ‘new liberalism’. However, even ‘liberalism’ as a term on its own has different meanings nowadays: in the USA members of the Democratic Party are named ‘liberals’, while on the other side of the ocean the Conservatives are often called ‘liberals’. Thus, explaining neoliberalism is not as straightforward as one might think. As with many political concepts, it takes the form of the eyes of the beholder. By way of an introduction, before the more ‘in-depth’ introduction in the next paragraphs, it is good to name part of its popular association. Neoliberalism in the media and in innocent conversations is often linked to capitalism; the disappearance of the welfare state; large scale privatisations; greedy investors and bankers; high (income) inequality; individual happiness and (economic) prosperity; receding governments; free trade and high competition, and many more. The average person would furthermore be likely to see neoliberalism as the preferred ideology of right-wing politicians. In the media it is moreover blamed for just about anything ‘bad’: the single focus on economics and high individualism and egocentrism; the declining social climate; the rolling back of the government and subsequent abandonment of the people to their own fate; the growing disregard for culture and history; the dismantling of (traditional) norms and values; the (indifference for) rapid climate change.5 Being amongst others the leading economic theory, there seems to be an almost basic rule that should there be something wrong that can be related to the economy, ‘neoliberalism’ must surely be responsible.

Academically seen, as a result of the large amount of academic literature that has been published on the subject in the last couple of decades, neoliberalism is now widely associated with a multitude of ideological movements, philosophies or theories, such as: German Ordoliberalism and the Freiburg School, the Chicago School and later the “Chicago Boys”, the Colloque Walter Lippmann which partially resulted in the ideas of the Mont Pelerin Society, Thatcherism and Reaganism, and the Washington consensus.6 It is through popular belief that big names such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, though arguably not at the very birth of early (forms of) neoliberalism (German

4

Ong, A. (2006) Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, p. 1.

5

See: Brohman, John (1995), ‘Economism and critical silence in development studies: A theoretical critique of neoliberalism, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 297-318.

6

See: Ganti, Tejaswini (2014), ‘Neoliberalism’, The Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 43, pp. 90-93. And: Peck, J. (2010),

(11)

11 Ordoliberalism), laid down the popular foundations of neoliberal thought from the late 1940s and early 1950s onwards. Earlier neoliberal sentiment can be dated back to the 1920s, but examples of so-called “actually existing neoliberalism” began to be especially discernible in the 1970s through policies of national transformation. More ‘moderate’7 and well known examples of these are the notions of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States of America, while more sudden or perhaps abrupt examples can be found in Latin or South America (Chile, Venezuela), the countries of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s and 2000s, and more recently Iraq.8

As can be derived from the diversity in ‘case study countries’, neoliberal political thought has been applied and linked to many different situations with many different outcomes. It is for this reason that authors such as Jamie Peck and Neil Brenner do not see a single immaculate steadfast origin of neoliberalism. Rather, as argued by Peck, “neoliberalism was a transnational, reactionary, and messy hybrid right from the start”, thus featuring many designers and origins, and making it a truly polysemic notion.9

Though it cannot be disclaimed that Peck’s argument holds some form of truth, the fact that the concept of neoliberalism is linked to a large amount of ideological movements and philosophies would also suggest that the concept must include common denominators, overlapping ideas or similarities to link these movements and philosophies, as well. Therefore, the notion of neoliberalism as a ‘thought collective’, (a term borrowed from Morowski), will be maintained throughout the text.10 It will be argued here that this collective hangs together firstly in its partition with, what can be seen as ‘classic liberalism’, secondly in the ideas of ‘market rationality’ and ‘marketization’, and thirdly in its global recognition when positioned as an enmity. This does not mean that no other characteristics can be attributed to neoliberalism; in contrast, many more could reasonably be linked. However, this section will confine itself to the three mentioned overarching terms as it believes that many other (secondary if you will) characteristics flow from, or are a result of, the ones

7

Here, ‘moderate' is used in the sense of a more ‘moderate’ transition, meaning not that the consequences or the level of ‘neoliberalism’ was necessarily moderate or felt in any such way by the population, but that the transition itself was less radically opposite to the previous system of governance. This can mean for example that in certain countries there was already a polity founded on or supported by a more or less strong economic order based on some sort of notion of the market economy as well as a relatively strong network of state institutions, whereas in other countries these elements were not (or to a lesser extent) in place.

8

For detailed accounts on these transitions, see amongst others for Iraq, Chile and some former Soviet Union states: Klein, N. (2008), The Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism, New York: Metropolitan Books Henry Holt and Company. For Latin America: Weyland, K. G., (2002) The Politics of Market Reform in Fragile Democracies: Argentina, Brazil, Peru and

Venezuela, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. And: Foxley, A. (1983), Latin American Experiments in Neoconservative Economics, London: University of California Press.

9

Peck, J. (2010), Constructions of Neoliberal Reason, Oxford: OUP Oxford, p. 39. 10

Mirowski, P. and Plehwe, D. (2009), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 428.

(12)

12 that will be discussed below. Furthermore, they correspond with the ensuing section on neoliberal critics. The three linking ideas will now in turn be discussed briefly.

The first umbrella notion within the neoliberal thought collective concerns the partition with classical liberalism. This construct of liberalism is associated with the idea of natural law and the inalienable rights, evolving into the ideal of a social contract and the rule of law, personal, religious and social tolerance and freedom, and the opposition of tyranny and dictatorship. It later also became affiliated with laissez-faire and individualism: arguing in favour of free trade and competition as well as private possession; with a state that should caution intervening in economic matters to any further extent than the protection of personal property and freedom.11 Hitherto it seems as though the previous is in line with general ideas about neoliberalism. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century liberalism had made a reversal and partially changed its form to an ideology accepting and even incorporating collectivism, community thinking and social planning.12 It was precisely this development that concerned and worried the ‘new’ liberals of the 1930s and 1940s. The idea that collectivism threatened personal freedoms and would almost certainly lead to totalitarianism and dictatorship through over-expansive collective planning and state ownership, pushed the call for a reinvention or revitalised interpretation of liberalism by the ‘new’ liberals or (now) neoliberals such as Hayek, Popper, and some time later the collective members of the Mont Pelerin Society.13 The neoliberal ideology and neoliberal governance would use some of the older values of liberalism and focus itself only on the economic variant of what was seen as early liberalism (free trade, competition, protection of individual rights and property, etc.). However, instead of confining the economics of the ideology to the economic sphere, it would implement them on society at large.

This leads to what is seen as the second collective notion of the neoliberal thought collective, that of market rationality and marketization. With regards to the former, neoliberalism can now be considered as a political rationality or form of governance, in which all components of life can be seen in the context of market rationality. Borrowing the interpretation of the European Commission, ‘governance’ can be explained as ‘the process whereby elements in society (institutions and civil society) wield power and authority and influence and enact policies and decisions concerning public life and economic and social development. At the heart of the concept of governance is the construction of effective, accountable and legitimate governing arrangements within the diverse

11

Titlestad, P. J. H. (2010), Liberalism, English Academy Review: Southern African Journal of English Studies, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 94-98.

12

Turner, R. S. (2007), The ‘rebirth of liberalism’: The origins of neo-liberal ideology, Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 67-68.

13

For more detailed accounts of the ideas of these men, see: Hayek, F. A, (1944), The road to serfdom, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. And: Popper, K. R. (1945), The open society and its enemies, London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.

(13)

13 institutional setting of the public, private and voluntary sectors.’14 Popular belief often links this market rationality with the homo economicus. This homo economicus is a human being that is entrepreneurial and manufacturing, that will let all their decisions be directed by their own (economic) interest, and of whom their interactions with other ‘beings’ are also seen as economic transactions or activities.15 Economically or financially ‘good’ is the only ‘good’ there is, topping socially or morally ‘good’. Associated with this are the notions of a consumer society, egocentrism and materialism, and thus the assumption that all thought, decision and acting is economically rational, since personal enrichment will always be pursued.16

However, the homo economicus portrays an idealistic image; it sketches a ‘utopia’ of a perfectly functioning world featuring perfectly rational actors. In reality, it has been criticised by various authors for being a fantasy. However, as of late it has been argued that neoliberalism itself does not even hypothesise or assume full rationality from all and in fact realises the homo economicus to be a non-existing being opposing the reality of real people that seem to fail miserably in pursuing their own interests.17 Instead, it presupposes and consequently encourages a political system that stimulates and rewards this rational acting.18 In the same way, neoliberalism does not assume a natural, self-evident rationality, nor a natural and self-evident market. Contrary, these will have to be organised and regulated by means of laws and (political) institutions.19 The concept of marketization, furthermore, can be described as a (politically guided) increase of commodification and market rule, or even the process of market-oriented regulatory restructuring.20 It is the transforming of previously otherwise arranged commodities of (human) life into markets.21 In it, all miscellaneous aspects of society that are not part of the idea of a ‘traditional market’, such as for example the ‘stock markets’ or the ‘CO2 market’ that are nowadays a very natural part of society, are made into ‘markets’; thus creating the possibility to express the value of even the most fundamental components of life in money.

The third and final generic addition to the thought collective that will be discussed here is the recognition of neoliberalism almost solemnly as a term to describe an adverse way of thinking, or

14

European Commission, ‘What is Governance’, http://ec.europa.eu/governance/index_en.htm, accessed on 25.05.2015. 15

Hees, Martin van, Patrick van Schie, and Mark van de Velde. (2014) Primitieve mensbeelden: de homo economicus. In

Neo-liberalisme: een politieke fictie. Amsterdam: Boom, p. 63.

16

Neo-liberalisme: een politieke fictie. Amsterdam: Boom, pp. 63 – 71.

17

Neo-liberalisme: een politieke fictie. Amsterdam: Boom, pp. 64-67.

18

Brown, W. (2003), Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy, Theory and Event, Vol. 7 No. 1, point 9. 19

Brown, W. (2003), point 10-18. 20

Brenner, N., Peck, J., Theodore, N. (2010), Variegated neoliberalization: geopraphies, modalities, pathways, Global

Networks, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 182-184.

21

Crouch, C. (2009), Marketization, in: Flinders, M. and Gamble, A. and Hay, C. and Kenny, M., The Oxford Handbook of

(14)

14 even an inimical ideology. The term “neo-liberalism” itself popped up in the late 1930s and arguably was unpopular from the start, even with those to whom the term referred.22 In its contemporary use it is in fact avoided in general as a self-descriptive term, and neither is it more than sporadically described or used as a positive ideological term.23 Interesting is that the word “liberal” by itself, on the contrary, usually enjoys a positive annotation, being for the most part affiliated with generally positive terms such as freedom and tolerance. Adduced arguments to explain this phenomenon include the linking of the term ‘neo-liberal’ with radical market reforms, such as in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s.24 However, there are two sides to this story: neoliberalism as a term also positions itself and draws its strength from opposing other ideas or ideologies. As briefly touched on in the previous paragraphs, neoliberal thought more or less originated and developed by manifesting itself as an alternative or opposite to collectivism, state planning and totalitarianism. Furthermore, for whatever positive associations the neoliberal thought collective does have, for example that of personal or individual freedom and the value it appoints to the individual right to pursue happiness and prosperity, they are to a great extent acknowledged when placed opposite of the absence thereof.

1.2. CRITICISING THE NEOLIBERAL POLITICAL REASON

‘Full employment will be achieved only by chance, competition is likely to be destructive, and financial markets tend to blow up on their own. They may show stability for a while, but this stability will sow the seeds of its own destruction.’25

- Marc Lavoie

As set out in the first section of this thesis, the term ‘neoliberal’ or ‘neoliberalism’ is often used as a sort of malignant or detrimental concept. In the classic ‘chicken and egg’ story, as a result of the negative connotations, or as resulted in these connotations, the thought collective has many opponents. This section will stick to those most prominent criticisms: the argued inevitable increased inequality and de-democratisation, relating to the question: in what way can neoliberal political rationalities and subsequent neoliberal policies potentially undermine a democracy? Following is the ‘crux’ question if you will, for how can these claimed negatively affecting neoliberal policies exist?

22

Turner, R. S. (2007), p. 72. 23

Boas, T. C. and Gans-Morse, J. (2009), ‘Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan’, Studies in

Comparative International Development, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 140-141.

24

Boas, T. C. and Gans-Morse, J. (2009), p. 137. 25

Lavoie, Marc (2012), ‘Financialization, neo-liberalism, and securitization’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 35 No. 2, p. 231.

(15)

15 Here, the relationship between neoliberalism and the state system of constitutional democracies will be looked at through exploring the example as elaborated on by Wendy Brown.

1.2.A. INEQUALITY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

‘The point is that markets (...) are class structured to (nationally) varying degrees. There is no such thing as a `free' market.’26

- David Coburn

Before moving on to shifting the focus to the specifics of the European Union, it is necessary to take a closer look at one of the most commonly used arguments of why neoliberalism and neoliberal policy is ‘bad’: equality, or rather the lack thereof. Why does ‘the equal right to inequality’ prevail in a neoliberal society and what could the broader implications of it be? This correlates, to a large extent, with the umbrella terms of marketisation and market rationality as discussed before. These rationalities are deprived from the idea of the ‘self-regulating market’; the market is a governing mechanism that regulates society. 27 In an ideal situation of rational actors, this would lead to an optimal situation in which demand and supply would always find each other, correcting all ‘sharp edges’ of society. The ‘sharp edges’ (think prices that are too high or quality that is too low) would be taken out by the market, which would provide for an optimal economic situation and thus an optimal societal situation. Individuals act independently and to their own functioning.28 Therefore, the society is ordered, as (economic) life is based on individual producers and consumers via a competitive system.29 As this chain of thought presumes the self-regulation of the market and thus society, state interference is looked at sceptically.30 Furthermore, the potential of receiving higher or lower awards for labour, for example, provides for a good motivational tool that helps society to remain competitive, productive, innovative and efficient. Thus, state interference is inefficient and even unethical at times.31 This, however, also leads to two kinds of inequality; inequality within a society and inequality between societies, as well as a number of negative side effects.

The first type of inequality, the inequality within a society, seems to be almost a natural consequence of the presupposition of market rule in a reality of a society comprised of non-rational actors. These actors will not naturally strive to gain only personal benefits, but will often let

26

Coburn, D. (2000), ‘A brief repsonse’, Social Science &Medicine, Vol. 51, p. 1010. 27

McCarthy, J. and Prudham, S. (2004), ‘Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism’, Geoforum, Vol. 35, p. 276. 28

Polanyi, M. (1941), ‘The Growth of Thought in Society’, Economica, Vol. 8, No. 32, p. 438. 29

Polanyi, M. (1941), p. 435. 30

McCarthy, J. and Prudham, S. (2004), ‘Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism’, Geoforum, Vol. 35, p. 276. 31

Coburn, D. (2000), ‘Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism’,

(16)

16 themselves be led by emotions or levels of satisfaction.32 Furthermore, those who, for whatever reason, hold economic power by way of owning production tools or natural resources, are able to preserve this power as they control the production process. The balancing or countering of this inequality in constitutional democracies is usually to varying extends arranged via the system of welfare states. However, these welfare states require a certain degree of state interference and are thus a non(or less)-desired system in the eyes of neoliberals. Going beyond this, the neoliberal market rationale (tries to) undermines these welfare states by minimizing and reducing interference in the form of rules and regulations as much as possible. Thereof resulting higher income inequality and greater socio-economic inequalities can consequently, in combination with the earlier mentioned aspect of individualism and the absence of social cohesion, lead to lowered health status.33 For example, morbidity rates are much higher for unskilled persons, than for professionals.34 Another negative consequence of inequality (mainly income inequality) within a country is that it could lead to a higher probability of social conflict and political instability.35 Especially when a rise in inequality occurs, there is a greater likelihood of revolution, protest or unrest.36 Lastly, there is also a strong connection between inequality and crime, with the loss of social buffers correlation with high incidences of delinquency and violent crimes.37

The second type of inequality is inequality between societies, nations, and continents. As a consequence of amongst others neoliberalism’s flagship ‘competition’, in combination with ‘free trade’, large inequalities between countries and even groups of countries are apparent. Generally seen, neoliberalism or capitalism does not intrinsically focus on the effects of the economy on the environment. Neoliberal policies prefer less government and free trade, but the production and consumption process does impact forests, water, (agricultural) land, fishery, and etcetera. Of course, not all components of a country’s industry or economy impact negatively on the environment, however, a large share does.38 Policies of environmental marketisation where the environmental problem is converted into a market (think emission rights trade), are the usual neoliberal answer.39 However, inequality between nations and continents to a large extent also results in a situation

32

An interesting article on how different actors are led by their levels of ‘acceptance’ or their level of satisfaction is: Etzioni, A. (2010), ‘Behavioural economics’, Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 377-397.

33

Coburn, D. (2000), ‘Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism’, pp. 135-136.

34

For more detailed information on this, see amongst others: Lynch, J. (2000), ‘Income inequality and health: expanding the debate’, Social Science &Medicine, Vol. 51, p. 1001-1005.

35

For more detailed information on this, see amongst others: Thorbecke, E. and Charumilind, C. (2002), ‘Economic Inequality and Its Socioeconomic Impact, World Development, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1477-1495.

36

Thorbecke, E. and Charumilind, C. (2002), pp. 1485-1487. 37

For more detailed information on this, see amongst others: Kawachi, I. and Kennedy, B. P. and Wilkinson, R. G. (1999), ‘Crime: social disorganization and relative deprivation’, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 48, pp. 719-731.

38

Liverman, D. M. and Vilas, S. (2006), ‘Neoliberalism and the Environment in Latin America’, Annual Review Environment

Resources, Vol. 31, pp. 331-356.

39

(17)

17 where poorer countries are less able to cope with the negative implications and effects of environmental change. An example of this are the rising water levels through the (speeded) melting of the arctic ice, that now affects countries in Africa, that have to deal with extreme conditions such a floods.40 Or the changing weather conditions as a result of human prone magnified climate change that causes great droughts in African countries and floods in Asian countries. These negative environmental connotations of neoliberal policies are often much more complex and cannot easily be solved by for example creating extra markets.

1.2.B. DE-DEMOCRATISATION

“Their [Neoliberalism and neoconservatism] respective devaluation of political liberty, equality, substantive citizenship, and the rule of law in favor of governance according to market criteria on the one side, and valorization of state power for putatively moral ends on the other, undermines both the culture and institutions of constitutional democracy.”41

- Wendy Brown

The English Oxford Dictionary describes ‘democracy’ as ‘[a] system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives’.42 It also uses the description that affirms democracy to comprise the principles of social equality and with it, the ‘fair and equal treatment of everyone in an organization, etc., and their right to take part in making decisions’.43 Adhering to this description, it has been argued that the neoliberal thought, and thus neoliberal governance, touches democracy in its core.

The before analysed equality, one of the three components of the slogan of the French Revolutions, and thus a widely believed flagship for democracy, 44in fact is seen to lead the list of factors whose absence leads to the subversion of a democratic system. As argued, in a neoliberal society the motto ‘the equal right to inequality’ prevails, and the existence of this inequality and

40

For more detailed information on this, see amongst others: Clapp, J. (2000), ‘The global economy and environmental change in Africa’, In: Stubbs, R. and Underhill, G. (Eds.), Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, 2nd ed., Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

41

Brown, W. (2006), ‘American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization’, Political Theory, Vol. 34 No. 6, p. 690.

42

Oxford Dictionaries, ‘British& World English: democracy’,

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy, accessed 28.06.2015. 43

Oxford Dictionaries, ‘Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary: democracy’,

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/democracy, accessed 28.06.2015. 44

This thesis does not claim that (the process of) the French Revolution itself was a figurehead of democracy. However, the slogan ‘Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité’, is being aligned by many with the idea of democracy, and furthermore the idea of democracy as the desired or even ideal form of governance. For a more detailed account on the events of the French Revolution, see: Censer, J. R. (2004), Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, Pennsylvania State University Press: Pennsylvania, p. 105.

(18)

18 subsequent permanent class division is a natural and inevitable consequence of a government or political elite that is aimed at marketization and individual or personal responsibilities. This ‘self-care’ furthermore detracts from the belief in active citizenry and the will to fight for the ‘public good’.45 There is a strong belief of responsibility and entrepreneurship by the individual, as all individuals should in some way contribute to a society.46 Through the assumption that inequality is intrinsic to a society, neoliberalism puts aside another one of democracy’s flagships; the principle of universalism: equality is in fact not applicable to all persons, nor at all times or in all places.

Given the ‘natural status’ of inequality, it would follow that a substantial part of society lives in relative poor conditions compared to the economically powerful rich elite. It then follows that the percentage of relatively poor people would top that of the elite. In a traditional democracy this would mean a possible rule of the poor over the rich, naturally resulting in a weakening of market power via the elected state apparatus. Consequently, it is less remunerative for the economic elite to hold in place the full scale of democracy, especially without putting in place certain (legal) guarantees.

As a result of this preference of those (initially) in power, a country that holds high the neoliberal idea of governance would try to run on the neoliberal idea of ‘marketization’ and market rationality (as set out shortly in the previous part of this chapter). It would hereby put a multiplicity of democratic notions at stake in favour of realising a society divided into markets and ruled by these markets. Examples of these notions are those of liberties, free elections and the rule of law, to which the neoliberal thought arguably allocates relatively little value. As following the argumentation of Wendy Brown, these notions are often subordinate to the idea of solid economic state power and are only important insofar as they can be used as rhetorical symbols or instruments of a claimed democracy.47_{As a result, neoliberal governance will hence impel a plurality of antidemocratic} trends: the devaluation of political autonomy; the depolarisation of social issues, which are now seen as individual problems or problems arising as a result of market failure; the creation of a consumer citizen, who is open to be ruled (and controlled) by the state; the legitimisation of (authoritarian) statism, in which the state has substantial centralised control over social and economic affairs in order to ‘protect’ the free market functioning.48 Moreover, active political involvement and free and independent media sources are neither of essential importance to the society. Instead, again, the idea is that in order to create a perfectly or optimally functioning society, the good (see: free)

45 Brown, W. (2006), p. 695. 46 Brown, W. (2006), p. 701. 47 Brown, W. (2006), pp. 701-702. 48 Brown, W. (2006), pp. 703-705.

(19)

19 functioning of the market will need to be guaranteed, even above following other workings of society such as democracy.

In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein also allocates the label ‘anti-democratic’ to neoliberalism as a global force or global ideology. Klein argues that governments or groups that have a neoliberal character, make use of either manmade or nature made disasters in order to further implement the neoliberal thought into society. By ways of the shock doctrine, in which the playing field is being brought back to level or neutral by these manmade or natural shock (think war or natural disaster), the doors are opened for restructuring campaigns. It is at this time that neoliberalism moves in: circumnavigating the democratic process on the ‘emergency’ argument. Examples of this process have manifested themselves and can be identified throughout history on all continents.49 It is furthermore claimed that the current economic crisis and dysfunction of the market is rather the result of a general ‘essentially irreconcilable conflict between capitalist markets and democratic politics’50, than of a temporarily suspended situation of ideal market and society functioning.

1.2.C. LEGITIMACY CRISIS AND POLITICAL VACUUM

‘Now the issue is how far states can and must go in enforcing on their citizens the property rights and profit expectations of those that call themselves “the markets,” [...] while protecting as best they can what may still remain of their democratic legitimacy.’51

- Wolfgang Streeck

The idea (and sense of necessity) for this thesis in its very early stages originated from the doom scenario depicted in Wendy Brown’s ‘American Nightmare’. It therefore seems fitting to introduce this final section on neoliberalism’s critique with the named text. In American nightmare: neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and de-democratization, it is argued that the combination of neoliberalism and neoconservatism impairs the democratic system of a country, in the example the system of the US, in various ways. The claim is that neoliberalism has intrinsically anti-democratic elements and that the execution of neoliberal governance thus leads to a democratic vacuum. Democracy as a state form of governance derives its legitimacy from the people. The state thus receives its ability to govern and pose authority from the legitimacy it receives from the people.

49

See examples in: Klein, N. (2008), The Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism, New York: Picador, pp. 5 – 21. 50

Streeck, Wolfgang (2011), ‘The crisis in context democratic capitalism and its contradictions’, MPIfG discussion paper, No. 11/15, p. 2.

51

Streeck, Wolfgang (2011), ‘The Crisis in Context: Democratic Capitalism and Its Contradictions’, MPIFG Discussion Paper, Vol. 11/15, p. 18.

(20)

20 However in the case of a de-democratising society, legitimacy is less derived from the people. As legitimacy is still needed except where there is an authoritarian or dictatorial state, an alternative for the traditional democracy related legitimacy will need to be found. A situation of self-legitimacy or legitimacy deducted from other authoritative institutions or rationales is thus created. It is in this way that the democratic vacuum becomes a political vacuum: there is room for other policies to make their appearance on the political stage.

Brown presents a clear example of the way in which this process can take place. In the American example it is the neoconservative rationale that adjoins the neoliberal rationale and fills up this vacuum. Although the neoconservative movement originated with the purpose of counteracting the erosion of the sense of morality that was caused by neoliberalism, and neoliberalism and neoconservatism are intrinsically gainsaying ideologies in many different aspects, the two movements have found each other (in the US) in their mutual aversion against government structured (social) equality.52 Regardless of the relatively plain language Brown and other academics use to convey their message of the dangers involved regarding anti-democratic trends and inequality53, they are able to govern together and execute their de-democratising policies. In fact, it is worth mentioning that apart from relatively ‘small’ initiatives, such as for example the occupy movement54, no large-scale action, neither by the population nor by academics, has been undertaken to counteract the aforementioned developments. Brown mentions the following:

If the de-democratizing effects of neoliberalism [...] prepare the ground for the authoritarian features of neoconservative governance, the political mobilization of religious discourse is an important fertilizer.55

Through the increasingly unclear separation of state and Church, the neoconservative and neoliberal state systems are thus able to redirect and base the legitimisation of their authoritarian statism on the historical authority and legitimacy of the Church. The Church itself builds a pastoral relation with its followers and furthermore tries to create unison amongst its members. Following the Church’s

52

Brown, W. (2006), pp. 699-701. 53

The title itself can be seen as the first clear warning; using explicit words such as nightmare and de-democratization. Further in the text Brown also talks about the hollowing out of a democratic political culture and the jettison or challenging of the fundaments of constitutional democracy, as well as assembling neoconservatism with an overtly avowed power drive and valorising power and statism.

54

Though Occupy is an international movement that is active in a multitude of (mainly Western) countries and has executed a wide range of ‘operations’ such as protests and sit-ins, the movement has been relatively divided with many off-springs, as well as relatively unsuccessful to accomplish broad and far reaching changes. Furthermore, its fame seems to be attributed more towards the image of camping sides in front of corporate strongholds, protests signs and anonymous masks, than it is attributed towards their actual ideals. For more detailed information, see: Gamson, W. A., Sifry, M. L., Special Section: The #Occupy Movement: An Introduction, The sociological quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 2 pp. 159-163. This short text also refers to a number of other additional texts on the movement.

55

(21)

21 use of performative speech, declaring truths that are often accepted and assumed in their entirety rather than questioned or argued, neoconservative and neoliberal state systems are able to put aside both facts, and any contingent discussion. A further subservience or even submission to the truths as claimed by the ruling authority, again as followed by the example of fundamentalist members of church to the word of the Church, devaluates political accountability. The acceptance of an anti-democratic trend, by for example the existence of inequality, is thus guaranteed: since it is in fact the personal relationship with God that matters, hierarchy and inequality within the Church itself and the broader society, for example between different religions or between religious and non-religious persons, is conceived as only natural.

Of course, (Christian) faith has formed an intrinsic part of American society and has played a role of significant power for many a century.56 Moreover, the US has known a long history of (neo)conservatism, having the ideology interwoven with the country’s Republican Party.57 As a result, the implementation of neoconservative and neoliberal policy is thought to be almost a matter of course when a Republican president holds the oval office: something the Republicans have indeed succeeded in half the time in the last hundred years.58 Further pursuing this point, it has also been argued that neoconservatism in the United States has a more ‘continuing character’ too: going beyond just the distinguishing features of the Conservative party59 and suggesting a more solid continuing line of American liberal heritage.60 The title American Nightmare thus honours itself by being indeed highly applicable to the American situation. Nonetheless, no explicit mention of the fact that the addressed doomsday scenario (with a convincing amount of realism) could actually only be applicable to the United States. Rather, the US is used as the conspicuous example. As a result, it is important to now consider the situation of the European Union. The institutions of the European Union themselves arguably do not have a strong tradition of religious influence, but do have a strong neoliberal character. The latter will be discussed in the ensuing section. Following ‘American nightmare’ it is now important to look as a possible ‘European nightmare’.

CONCLUSION

56

For a detailed account of the history of religion in the US, see: Lambert, F. (2003), The Founding Fathers and the Place of

Religion in America, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

57

See: Aberbach, J. D., and Peele, G. (2011), Crisis of conservatism? The Republican Party, the conservative movement, and

American politics after Bush, New York: Oxford University Press.

58

See: no author, ‘Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the United States’,

http://americanhistory.about.com/library/charts/blchartpresidents.htm, accessed on 07.04.2014. And: The White House, ‘The Presidents’, https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/Presidents, accessed on 07.04.2015.

59

Kiely, R. (2004), What difference does difference make? Reflections of neo-conservatism as a liberal cosmopolitan project, Contemporary Politics, Vol. 10 No. 3-4, p. 187.

60

(22)

22 This chapter has sought to analyse what ‘neoliberal’ means and what neoliberal policies entail. This relates to the question asked at the beginning of the chapter of how neoliberal political rationalities and subsequent neoliberal policies could potentially undermine a democracy, as asked at the beginning of the chapter. The question was divided into two parts, starting with ‘what falls under the notion ‘neoliberal’ and what does it imply; what overlapping characteristics can be identified in different theories?’. The purpose was to highlight a number of different characteristics of the neoliberal thought through this examination of theoretical data. Using different authors it was argued that the concept of neoliberalism hangs together in its development in relation to ‘classic’ liberalism, its recognition when posed as a disposition, and its concepts of marketisation and market rationale.

The second part of the chapter’s goal then focused on the question in what way democracy could be potentially undermined by neoliberal political rationalities and thereof arising neoliberal policies. Or, what are the potentially undermining factors and how can they exist or even be executed? In order to answer this question, a number of texts by different authors were again used. It was argued that the transition to a market centred society, often results in inequality within societies and between societies, resulting in a number of negative consequences. Following the logic as put forward by Wendy Brown, it also effectively changes the notion of democracy. Where democracy used to be the foundation for state legitimacy, market rationality or neoliberalism is now claiming its own base for legitimacy, or alternatively; a consequent lack of legitimacy arises. This gap forms a vacuum that can be filled by other rationalities or institutions. The question thus arises if and how neoliberalism has started a de-democratising trend in the EU and what may fill up the resulting gap or vacuum? It is of utmost importance to study more in-depth the situation of the European Union and the ideals underlying its policies, to provide a foundation so that (in subsequent studies) the consequences of these policies can be researched further. Before the distinctive policy developments of the EU can be discussed, however, it is necessary to first provide a brief overview of the neoliberal features in the EU, and the way in which they could signal a de-democratising trend and maybe vacuum within the Union. In the ensuing chapter, the aforementioned will thus be described and illustrated with several examples.

(23)

Master’s thesis Europese studies: Europees beleid | Chapter 2. The case of the European Union: neoliberalism and de-democratisation in the EU

23 CHAPTER 2. THE CASE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: neoliberalism and

de-democratisation in the EU

After a general and broad introduction into the concept of neoliberalism and neoliberal political thought, the second chapter of this thesis narrows its scope and will address the specifics applicable to the European Union. The question that it seeks to answer is: how have neoliberal policies in the EU affected and possibly eroded its democratic standing? It will do so through generally discussing the same subjects as set out in the first chapter, but now on the EU level. The first section will thus cover the question: how does neoliberal political thought manifest itself in the EU? The assertion that the EU has at least a partial neoliberal character is being strengthened by a multitude of authors. Therefore this section will seek an answer to the later question by analysing and citing texts of authors such as Chris Shore, Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Owen Parker, David Gerber and several more.

The goal is to place the notion of neoliberalism or neoliberal political thought within the conditions of the Union. Keeping in mind the American Nightmare scenario, this chapter will provide Meta data on its offset, and analyse in what way the neoliberal character is believed or disbelieved to distinguish itself from the global or American branch of neoliberal reason. Examples of visible expression of the rationale in the EU will be given to illustrate and put into practise the theoretical part. The subsequent second section will contain a number of fields or examples in which the negative effects of neoliberalism are coming to the surface. In it, the democratic deficit and inequality as set out in the first chapter will be discussed. So, in what way can Neoliberalism be seen in the European Union and what are its consequences; is the EU following a similar path to that of the US?

2.1. NEOLIBERALISM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

“In large parts of the world, neoliberalism is practically synonymous with the market-oriented philosophy of the “Washington consensus” agencies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a usually pejorative signifier for a distinctly American form of “free-market” capitalism, propagating globally.”61

- Jamie Peck

2.1.A. A BRIEF HISTORY

61