On exactitude in social science: A multidimensional proposal for investigating articulated neoliberalization and its ‘alternatives’

This article proposes an innovative analytical framework for investigating processes of neoliberalization and its articulation with ‘alternative’ governance arrangements. It is by now well-established that neoliberalism is a variegated process that manifests differently in diverse contexts. Yet how to actually conceptualize and investigate this variegation remains unclear: we lack a comparative framework for analyzing how different dimensions of neoliberalization manifest within a given context as well as how these articulate with non-neoliberal modes of governance. To address this lacuna, the framework proposed here begins with a multidimensional understanding of neoliberalization as comprising an overarching philosophy, a set of general principles through which this philosophy is expressed, the specific policies via which these principles are implemented and the forms of subjectivity all of this seeks to cultivate. It then integrates an approach to distinguishing ‘multiple governmentalities’ derived from recently published work by Michel Foucault to understand neoliberalism as a particular governmentality that may articulate with others. To complete the ensemble, it draws on ‘diverse economies’ perspectives pioneered by J.K. Gibson-Graham to assess the relationship between particular governance strategies and on-the-ground practices. The resulting synthetic framework affords multidimensional investigation of the complex ways that different elements of neoliberalization may articulate with distinct forms of governance in both planners’ visions and concrete execution by practitioners. Its utility is illustrated through a case study of Costa Rica’s payment for environmental services (PES) program, which exbibits a complex form of articulated neoliberalization in practice. ephemera: theory & politics in organization 19(3): 537-564 538 | article Introduction It is by now well-established that neoliberalization is a ‘variegated’ process that manifests quite differently in diverse contexts in syncretism with pre-existing institutions and ideologies. Yet this has led some critics to contend that if neoliberalism is indeed such a diverse process then it may exist only within researchers’ minds. While others have responded by asserting that there remains sufficient commonality among different processes of neoliberalization to warrant investigation as a common pattern, debate remains concerning how far analysis in these terms can be extended before it becomes untenable. In particular, researchers have identified a need to explore how neoliberal processes and institutions ‘articulate’ with other forms that cannot be reduced to mere epiphenomena or residual effects of neoliberalization, however variegated. In responses to all of this, this article proposes an innovative analytical framework for investigating processes of articulated neoliberalization and their ‘alternatives’. This framework combines several existing conceptual approaches into a unique synthesis that allows each to compensate for certain gaps in the others, producing a robust holistic perspective. It begins with a multidimensional understanding of different aspects of neoliberalization as comprising an overarching ‘philosophy’, a set of general ‘principles’ and more specific ‘policies’. It then includes an approach to distinguishing ‘multiple governmentalities’ derived from recently published work by Michel Foucault to understand neoliberalism as one of a number of different governmentalities that may articulate in different combinations. It finishes by integrating ‘diverse economies’ perspectives, particularly work by J.K. Gibson-Graham and their Community Economies Collective, to assess the complex ways that governance visions play out in on-the-ground practices. The resulting synthetic framework allows for multi-dimensional investigation of the complex ways that different elements of neoliberalization may articulate with other forms of governance both in planners’ visions and in concrete execution by practitioners. Scholarly research addressing neoliberalism is by now vast, hence rather than providing a comprehensive review I focus on the subset, arising predominantly from human geography, that has debated the utility of analysis from the perspective of ‘variegated neoliberalization’. I begin by describing how research concerning neoliberalization has documented an increasing diversity of such variegation. I then discuss a backlash to this by critics questioning whether there actually exists a cohesive process at the centre of this analysis. I follow with my own effort to chart a middle ground between these extremes, retaining a focus on variegated neoliberalization but contending that there are limits to the utility of analysis in these terms. I contend that our understanding must be expanded to Robert Fletcher On exactitude in social science article | 539 include equally nuanced understanding of how neoliberalization articulates with alternative forms of governance that cannot be considered merely residual effects of the former. Subsequently, I outline the components of the synthetic framework introduced to operationalize this perspective and show how it can be productively applied in empirical study by offering a schematic analysis of a payment for environmental services (PES) progamme in Costa Rica. I finish by pointing to further uses of the perspective proposed here for future research concerning articulated neoliberalization and associated processes. The varieties of neoliberalism While research concerning neoliberalism had been in gestation since the mid1990s, it was greatly stimulated by publication of David Harvey’s influential A brief history of neoliberalism in 2005, which Harvey claimed to have been inspired to write by recognition that within the growing literature ‘what is generally missing – and this is the gap this book aims to fill – is the political-economic story of where neoliberalization came from and how it proliferated so comprehensively on the world stage’ (2005: 4). While Harvey had sought to describe the key general principles of neoliberalism as a global political economic programme, others have increasingly explored how this programme manifests differently in specific contexts in syncretism with preexisting institutions and ideologies. This has resulted in a robust body of research, pioneered by Brenner and Theodore’s (2002) edited volume Spaces of neoliberalism, documenting the constitution of ‘actual existing’ neoliberalism(s). In the same year Peck and Tickell (2002) published their influential distinction between successive phases of ‘roll-back’ and ‘roll-out’ neoliberalism, demonstrating the neoliberal programme’s mutation over time as well as through space. Brenner et al. have since positioned themselves at the center of a prolific literature describing ‘variegation’ in a processual neoliberalization to which they remain the most energetic contributors (see esp. Brenner et al., 2010a, 2010b). Researchers have also documented considerable variation among the particular views espoused by different theorists commonly deemed central to the neoliberal project. Broadly, Foucault (2008) distinguishes between the Austrian/German ‘Ordo-liberals’ epitomized by Hayek and the U.S. ‘Chicago School’ represented most centrally by Friedman. Birch (2015) develops more fine-grained distinctions within these two camps as well as how their proponents’ thinking changed over time. Cahill notes ambiguity in terms of the policy prescriptions offered by 1 This work drew heavily on Duménil and Lévy’s (2004) Resurgent capital, published the previous year, but has become far more widely cited. ephemera: theory & politics in organization 19(3): 537-564 540 | article prominent theorists including Friedman and Hayek themselves (see Cahill, 2014). Jessop (2002, 2013) distinguishes among four primary neoliberal project entailing wholesale system transformation, restructuring processes largely administered by external institutions (i.e. in Third World structural adjustment), less dramatic regime shifts, and even more modest policy adjustments. Within policy discussion specifically, Robinson and Harris (2000) identify three main strands of neoliberal thought: 1) free market conservativism demanding a purely laissezfaire approach to economic governance; 2) neoliberal structuralism advocating a global regulatory framework to stabilize the economy without direct intervention; and 3) neoliberal regulationism contending that a global superstructure is necessary to internalize externalities and direct market behavior in socially desirable ways. To this could be added a fourth category of authoritarian neoliberalism promoting strong state direction of a market-based economy as on the Chinese model (see Harvey, 2005; Doane, 2012). There is also extensive documentation of widespread divergence between theory and practice in neoliberalization, that is, an often profound difference between the policy advise offered by neoliberal economists and other ideologues and the character policies and projects informed by or claiming allegiance to these ideas assume in actual implementation. This divergence takes different forms. At the most general level it applies to disjuncture between the common description of neoliberalism as promoting ‘free’ (self-regulating) markets and the reality that most ‘actual existing’ markets entail substantial regulation of the sort that would seem to contradict this free market ideal (McNally, 2006; Cahill, 2014). In part this is due to a widespread misconception that neoliberals eschew all efforts to direct markets when it is clear, as copious research shows and most nuanced researchers now acknowledge, that in fact neoliberal economists have commonly seen state oversight as essential to functioning markets (Harvey, 2005; Foucault, 2008). Others contend, further, that neoliberalism does not necessary entail deregulation per se so much as