Neoliberal Development in SEA: States, Market and Communities
Photo Source by Google
In pre-colonial Southeast Asia, land demarcation of boundaries was not important because the territories and power of one kingdom depended on how much they controlled the people not the land. A historian named O.W. Wolters defined such the spatial dimensions as ‘mandala’ system in which geographical areas were not clearly defined and smaller tribes went to all directions (i.e. bigger kingdom) for securities. Securities are either political or economic forms which evolved trading partnership (Peleggi, 2007). What is the meaning of boundaries in today world?
Without regard to pre-colonial period, this essay looks at a new trend in world system when neoliberalism is spreading to parts of this world in particular in Southeast Asia which used to be enclosed by sovereignty and natural boundaries of individual nation states. In particular, neoliberalism ideology necessitates strong individual private property rights, the rule of law, and the institutions of freely functioning markets and free trade. Doctrines of exceptionalism are a key to drive neoliberal market economy possible. It is intelligible that free market needs non-barriers amongst nation states (Harvey, 2005). It seems to me that SEA states have responsibilities to breakout those boundaries in order to make so-called neoliberalism possible. What are those responsibilities? This mini paper delves into the answer for this. I divide this paper into three main themes in relation with roles of nation states, markets and communities in “taking Southeast Asia to (neoliberal) market” (see Nevins & Peluso, 2008). The first theme will be under brief discussion on neoliberalism with its critiques in contemporary society; I may be dominated by conceptual framework of David Harvey. Next I will aim my second theme, particularly, at investigating a process of taking Southeast Asia into neoliberal market and its impacts, throughout conceptual lens of Nevins and Peluso (2008). Eventually the last theme covers community’s roles in responding to the impacts of neoliberal market, with adherence to political ecology analysis. Now let me begin the exploratory journey that follows.
David Harvey produced a good analysis on neoliberalism basically from geographical perspective. This grand thinker explains the spatialities and temporalities of capitalism and capitalist social formations, following a legend of class studies, Karl Marx. What makes Harvey and Marx different is that Harvey extends Marx’s unfinished jobs[1] into something larger in relation with geography and capitalism and imperialism in contemporary society. It would be easier to say that Harvey’s notion of spatial fix is a kind of answer for the collapse of neoclassical economy which ignored the importance of spatial issues—the performance of different forms of labors in different places and times and their integration in circuit of capital. (Jessop, 2006). David Harvey also introduces a relative concept of regional structured coherence, which was later adopted by Philippe Aydalot (1976). He writes as follows:
There are processes at work…that define regional spaces within which production and consumption, supply and demand (for commodities and labor power), production and realization, class struggle and accumulation, culture and lifestyle, hang together as some kind of structured coherence within a totality of productive forced and social relations.
(Harvey cited in Jessop 2006: 153)
This concept of regional structured coherence can be well understood by its significance of regional alliances in securitizing market in efficient costs and times within complex relations of labor. According to Harvey, regional spaces have four bases. The first base refers to the space in which the cost of time movement from places to places does not surmount the potential profit. In other words, it may secure the deficit between income and transportation cost. The second base lies on the securitization in labor substitution cost and time; daily labor movement must well respond to the demand in market. Additionally, the third base is about territorial formality in coherence and cohesion of state policies towards economy and extra-economy. Understandably it is all about regulatory coherence in policies of individual states towards the integration. The last base places its importance of informality of territory with meaning and identity by local and regional cultures—it is more about cultural coherence in the region (Jessop, 2006). Harvey adds that the states play a key role in shaping structured coherence and regional alliances through various mechanisms and forms of government and governance. To simplify, all states engaged in regional market economy have to ensure systematic coherence in two aspects—political and economic aspects in order to ease the process of economic flows and activities within a region. All in all, I can notice that state relations in pre-colonial period and neoliberal period are different. State relations now have nothing to do with tribute system for super power, which can be considered as old form of securitization. However, the new form of securitization is, according to Harvey, about securitizing regional market integration in which engaged states have to readjust its politically and economically coherent logics. Despite these ideal logics, conflicts and contractions still arise because it is related to potential contradiction between territorial and capitalist logics. The following paragraph delves into Harvey’s argument on contradiction between capitalist and territorial logics.
In The New Imperialism (2003), David Harvey addresses the problematic relationship between logics of power. Bob Jessop writes a good reconstruction of basic steps in Harvey’s argument. Logics of power are accumulated by territorial and capitalist logics which always interrelate with each other. The two logics create contradictions understood by mutual influences (capital logics constrain territorial logics and vice versa). Capitalism is based upon spatial logics of power that flow across and through space and time. Capitalist imperialism consists of two dialectical forces including territorial and capitalist powers and inner and outer relations with other states. To conclude this point, what Harvey means is that there are potential tensions and contradictions between these logics (territorial and capitalist). Jessop writes, “If territorial logics block the logic of capital, there is a risk of economic crisis. If capitalist logics undermine territorial logics, there is a risk of political crisis (Jessop, 2006, p. 157)”.
To sum up, I can conclude about neoliberalism within economic and political perspectives, based upon David Harvey’ explanation. Harvey sees neoliberal states create politics to control labor, and on political perspective neoliberalism appears as counterrevolutionary project which later saw communism rise—for example in France and Italy . For economic perspectives, we can see that regionalization which represents neoliberal model is all about labor and market management of risks. Without regional integration, countries seem to be lack of opportunities while resources are scattered around without being used. However, for instance of ASEAN, the states can mutually exchange resources and capital without concern of barriers. Neoliberal states shape political coherence to control labor. In relation to political perspective, it can be understood that regional structured coherence can be part of Communist containment policies. Structural adjustment is done in line with democracy and respects to human rights. But we cannot forget the logics of capitalism within neoliberal regime where conditions often take places between states and states and between states and communities. In the following paragraphs, I will look even more closely into Southeast Asian context especially into who those so-called neoliberal states facilitate in resource commoditization into market.
This section examines roles of states in neoliberal development from a perspective of resource commoditization. Natural resources here include living and non-living ones. Market and commoditization go along hand in hand. A substantivist economist Karl Polanyi introduces a term ‘ficticious commodity’ to show how capitalism has to create stories or fictions to commoditize nature—human beings in this case—into market where it can be bought and sold. He further argues that there are limits of how much human can be exploited and abused without social dislocation (Li, 2007). In particular, Nevins and Peluso point that commoditization in Southeast Asia is seen in two forms of old commodities and new commodities—the first refers to things we use, and the second refers to the realm of life made into market. The transition from old to new form of commodities is possible due to the rise of neoliberalism and globalization in Southeast Asia (Nevins & Peluso, 2008). They further spot the constraints of the self-regulated market ideology, with their argument that (self-regulated) free market does not work by itself. In fact, market in SEA needs backing from authoritarian states to make it possible. State backing is in forms of enclosure through law and violence or force, which assembles to Marxist notion of primitive accumulation. For an instance of this, enclosure as well as national park conservation can be considered as state’s tactics to rationalize their commoditizing process (Nevins & Peluso, 2008).
Furthermore, series of techniques are used by states to commoditize human beings and their production. First technique is introduced by Scheper-Huge who sees organs donation is part of tactic for having human organs to the market. Seeming to agree with Karl Polanyi, Nancy Scheper-Huge addresses a problem of human organs in global market by writing, “The problem with market is that they reduce everything—including human beings, their labor, and their reproductive capacity—to the status of commodities that can be bought, sold, traded, and stolen” (Scheper-Hughes, 2002). She depicts that there is a new trend of commoditization in forms of human organs being sold and bought in the global market. The process is possible with the creation of the stories related to organ donation from the dead to the living. Another tactic can be seen in the form of making people stateless as a case in Myanmar where the minority groups such as Rohingya do not receive legal citizenship; marginalized people became known as ‘bare life’ or ‘naked life’ (see Agamben 1998). This tactic can be simplified in the way that (stateless Rohingya) people are devalued so that they have no choice but becoming labor. An example is perceived through Burma Citizenship Law 1982 which disallowed Rohingya to move and work freely. As the result, there was a flow of illegal Rohingya into Mae Sot, Thailand in search for job, which can be considered as benefits for Thai entrepreneurs in Mae Sot (Boonreak, 2016). This kind of commoditization tactic is applicable to the context where there is a diversity of ethnicity and confusions among populations so that the state is rational enough to exclude a particular group as Rohingya in Myanmar.
To conclude my second theme of this essay, I would to pinpoint a depiction that the main roles of Southeast Asian states in neoliberal development evolve in two level—international and national level and within two aspects—economic and political. At international level, states are responsible in adjusting their government and governance into regional coherence both economically and politically so that easier flows of economic activities and goods are possible with no barriers and boundaries. At national level, states have other main duties in turning nature to commodities through various forms of tactics. Commodities in fact have two aspects of non-living nature resource and living human beings. Those commoditizing tactics are rationalized by development discourse and powers of exclusion. However, commoditization does not always bring welcoming impacts but also unwelcoming impacts which stimulate ‘countermovement’ from community level (see Hall, Hirsch and Li, 2011). The following paragraphs will turn attention to community level and unearth the roles of community in responding to issues of neoliberal development.
Improvement schemes are hoped to improve the living conditions of Indonesian communities. However, attention is on inconsistence between what is planned and what is achieved. In fact, development issues which come from improvement schemes stimulate “prickly subjects” within communities, the subjects of rights and the subject of political awareness. The subjects clearly understand the relationship between the current insecurities and the defects of the improving programs carried out in their name. They have been driven to act, individually and collectively, by injuries experienced as visceral, personal attacks on their ability to sustain their own lives. In some cases, there are terrible conflicts between Indonesians who get aware of critical politics and authoritarian government of Suhato who depended on international aids (structural adjustment). International loans kept flowing into Indonesia with a result of cultural and social conflicts between the local government and the people. The weak (the people) have to form groups for countermovement. Instead the government accused them of being Communist so that they have rationale to exclude them. However, with support from trustees like NGOs and academics, communities are able to participate in larger scale and their voices against development issues are louder (Li T. M., 2007). Therefore, in case of Indonesia communities have a very important role as watchdog reviewing practices of the state development program. Their roles have to be strengthened by NGOs and academics to become active citizens with conscious political awareness.
In his study on community forests Thailand, Anan (2008) synonymizes multiplicity of rights and knowledge spaces as a means that the community uses to negotiate with the government on risks management in forest lands. Contestation of knowledge happens over community forests which are proclaimed as degraded forests and as food resources for local livelihood. The state legalized the discourse “degraded forestland” which can be granted concessions to investment, whereas the local communities argued that their livelihood depended on the forest. Similar to Indonesian case, NGOs and academics play an essential role in mediating communities and the state on discussion table (Anan, 2008). Therefore, this case shows that communities are necessary in shaping development into sustainable manners due to Anan called “coexistence of knowledge” or “legal pluralism” which takes diverse accounts from different actors into consideration. Neoliberal development model is too far from local people’s knowledge while the local knowledge is almost unseen from the bird eye’s view of most policy makers. Hence, in order to keep development in good and sustainable manners, the local communities should be visualized in terms of rights and knowledge.
Here comes the closing paragraph of my paper. First let me clarify my stance on neoliberal development in Southeast Asia and the beyond. I have no objections against development endeavors of neoliberal states. Likewise I agree that it is impossible to stop development policies from having development projects with impacts on communities. However, what I want to say is to limit the risks—the risks that may affect the local communities as well as the whole countries. We can alleviate those risks by having coexistence of knowledge plus the will to improve. David Harvey is able only to explain new trend of neoliberalism in the wake of globalization. Capitalism and imperialism may sound unwelcoming to the Third World people, but it also brings opportunities and growth in terms of economic and social changes. But we have to think of ways to manage potential risks at the same time. Otherwise, things will be beyond control.
From my point of view, the relationship between states, market and communities in neoliberal era appears like check and balance system where pluralism of knowledge and legality exists by mediation from various actors like NGOs, CBOs, CS. It would be more undesirable if the state totally excludes the local affected communities with no attempt to welcome countermovement. States should be happy to see countermovement from the local because it signifies the errors of a policy. On the other hand, if a state isolates economy from the outside world, it would also be problematic to its revenue. Neoliberal market resembles double-blade sword which can hurt or heal, so we do need protect from community watchdog able to spot mistakes in development.
References
Anan, G. (2008). Multiplicity of Community Forestry as Knowledge Space in the Northern Thai Highlands. Afrasian Centre for Peace and Development Studies.
Boonreak, K. (2016). Newly-Arriving Rohingya: Integration into Cross-Border Trade Networks in the Thai-Burma Borderland. In S. Kosem, Border Twists and Burma Trajectories: Perceptions, Reforms, and Adaptations (pp. 245-266). Chiang Mai: Center for ASEAN Studies.
Harvey, D. (2005). The Neoliberal State. In D. Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (pp. 64-86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jessop, B. (2006). Spatial Fixes, Temporal Fixes and Spatio-Temporal Fixes . In N. Castree, & D. Gregory, David Harvey: A Critical Reader (pp. 142-166). Oxford: Blacwell Publishing .
Li, T. M. (2007). Introduction: The Will to Improve. In T. Murray Li, The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics (pp. 1-30). Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Li, T. M. (2007). The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development and the Practice of Politics. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Nevins, J., & Peluso, N. L. (2008). Introduction: Commoditization in Southeast Asia. In J. Navins, & N. L. Peluso, Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, Nature, and People in the Neoliberal Age (pp. 1-24). Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
Peleggi, M. (2007). Chapter 2: Boundaries. In M. Peleggi, Thailand: The Worldly Kingdom (pp. 57-89). London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2002). The Ends of the Body--Commodity Fetishism and the Global Market in Organs . SAIS Review , 61-80.
Notes
[1] Bob Jessop writes, “Harvey’s key contribution to the concretization of Marxist analysis concerns his exploration of socially necessary turnover time; and regarding complexification, it concerns his work on finance capital and the inherent spatiality of capital accumulation. Yet theories never reach completion… We should not criticize a theoretical approach just because that movement is complete.” (See Jessop, 2006, p. 144)
