The consolations of ‘neoliberalism’

Barnett, Clive

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.08.006

Cited by 368 publications

(251 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

243

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue that grand generalizations of PES -often pivoting around a 'Wunderian' PES ontology (Wunder, 2005(Wunder, , 2015 underpinned by neoliberal philosophy -all too often overlook alternative relationalities that actors mobilize to make sense of PES. A 'PES conceit' approach risks imbuing and dismissing this complexity through a wholesale relegation of PES as hegemonic neoliberalism, thereby obscuring the situational history, practice and scale of the processes involved (Barnett, 2005;Larner, 2003;Peluso, 2012), and silencing the agency of the related actors. Paradoxically, this position risks keeping the 'neoliberal monster' alive -the very one we try to escape from.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silencing Agency in Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) by Essentializing a Neoliberal ‘Monster’ Into Being: A Response to Fletcher & Büscher's ‘PES Conceit’

Hecken

Kolinjivadi

Windey

et al. 2018

Ecological Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TIn this commentary we respond to Fletcher and Büscher's (2017) recent article in this journal on Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) as neoliberal 'conceit'. The authors claim that focusing attention on the micro-politics of PES design and implementation fails to expose an underlying neoliberal governmentality, and therefore only reinforces neoliberal capitalism as both the problem and solution of ecological crises. In response, we argue that a focus on the actions of local actors is key to understanding how and why such governmentality fails or succeeds in performing as theorized. Grand generalizations fixated on a particular hegemonic and neoliberal PES ontology overlook how actors intertwine theory and practice in ways which cannot be explained by a dominant structural theory. Such generalizations risk obscuring the complexity and situational history, practice and scale of the processes involved. Rather than relegating variegated and hybrid forms of what actually emerges from PES interventions as neoliberal conceit, we argue that an actor-oriented, 'weak theory' approach permits PES praxis to inform knowledge generation. This would open up a more inclusive and politically engaging space for thinking about and realizing political change.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silencing Agency in Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) by Essentializing a Neoliberal ‘Monster’ Into Being: A Response to Fletcher & Büscher's ‘PES Conceit’

Hecken

Kolinjivadi

Windey

et al. 2018

Ecological Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, a great deal of analytical attention has been given to the discourses, rationalities, narratives, or interests which underpin particular programs of government. Within the field of governmentality, for example, authors frequently point to the ways in which 'neoliberal' rationalities underpin and frame governmental programs, sometimes too readily assuming that such logics can be 'rolled out' at a distance to shape the actions of communities and individuals (Barnett 2005). In contrast, detailed studies have also sought to examine the workings of particular assemblages, projects or programs in situ, demonstrating their dynamics and their practical effects in terms of the territorializations and subjectivizations they seek to render, or their integration with hegemonic interests and power relations (see Rutland and Aylett, 2008;Paterson and Stripple 2010;Rice 2010;Jonas and Gibbs 2011).…”

Section: From Governing Intent To Intervention: Configuring Urban Carmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notwithstanding, there is still surprisingly little attention to the particularities of how this relating is achieved and maintained. The result is that the processes through which governing is configured and enacted remain under-specified (see Barnett 2005;Cupples 2011). Why, by whom, and by what are diverse elements drawn together and held together in the exercise of urban carbon governance and, crucially, how does this occur?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Configuring Urban Carbon Governance: Insights from Sydney, Australia

McGuirk

Bulkeley

Dowling

2015

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the political geography of responses to climate change, and the governance of carbon more specifically, the urban has emerged as a strategic site. Although it is recognized that urban carbon governance occurs through diverse programs and projects-involving multiple actors and working through multiple sites, mechanisms, objects, and subjects-surprisingly little attention has been paid to the actual processes through which these diverse elements are drawn together and held together in the exercise of governing. These processes-termed configuration-remain underspecified. This article explores urban carbon governance interventions as relational configurations, excavating how their diverse elements-human, institutional, representational, and material-are assembled, drawn into relation, and held together in the exercise of governing. Through an analysis of two contrasting case studies of urban carbon governance interventions in Sydney, Australia, we draw out common processes of configuring and specific sets of devices and techniques that gather, align, and maintain the relations between actors and elements that constitute intervention projects. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of conceiving of governing projects as relational configurations for how we understand the nature and practice of urban carbon governance, especially by revealing the diverse modes of power at work within processes of configuring. AbstractIn the political geography of responses to climate change, and the governance of carbon more specifically, the urban has emerged as a strategic site. While it is recognised that urban carbon governance occurs through diverse programs and projects-involving multiple actors and working through multiple sites, mechanisms, objects and subjects-surprisingly little attention has been paid to the actual processes through which these diverse elements are drawn together and held together in the exercise of governing. These processestermed configuration -remain under-specified. This article explores urban carbon governance interventions as relational configurations, excavating how their diverse elements-human, institutional, representational, material-are assembled, drawn into relation and held together in the exercise of governing. Through an analysis of two contrasting case studies of urban carbon governance interventions in Sydney, Australia, we draw out common processes of configuring and specific sets of devices and techniques that gather, align and maintain the relations between actors and elements that constitute intervention projects. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of conceiving of governing projects as relational configurations for how we understand the nature and practice of urban carbon governance, especially by revealing the diverse modes of power at work within processes of configuring.

show abstract

“…Studies based on the idea that neoliberalism is a coherent hegemonic ideological frame for action may "reduce the understanding of social relations to a residual effect of hegemonic projects and/or governmental programmes of rule" (Barnett, 2004). More generally, debates about "top-down" versus "bottom-up" frameworks for studying the dynamics and rationales for state action also sometimes obscure the polysemous nature of policy initiatives: the same policy may have multiple meanings for multiple constituencies in different contexts, and these may vary over time.…”

Section: Challenges In Research and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%