Diverging Capitalisms? Britain, the City of London and Europe

On 28th October Prof Lucia Quaglia will speak at the workshop  'Diverging Capitalisms, Part 2: Brexit and the new EU economic governance' at the Policy Network, London. This workshop is the second of a series of four events organised as part of the project ‘Diverging Capitalisms? Britain, the City of London and Europe’, which is a joint venture between FEPS (Foundation for European Progressive Studies, Brussels), Policy Network, and SPERI (Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute, University of Sheffield). For more information see http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/events/diverging-capitalisms-part-2/.

Lucia's paper on 'European Union Financial Regulation, Banking Union, Capital Markets Union and the United Kingdom'  will examine post-crisis reforms in these policy areas by focusing on the preferences and influence of the United Kingdom (UK) in the policy process. It is argued that the UK has played a variety of roles – ‘foot-dragger’, ‘fence-sitter’ and ‘pace-setter’ - in the policies under discussion. The (at times considerable) British influence was geared towards the attainment of preferences that were shaped by domestic politics and political economy, first and foremost the interests of the financial services industry and the City of London.

Social Spending Targets and the IMF

Liam Clegg reflects on post-Global Financial Crisis shifts in conditionality.[1] 

Government spending has long been a controversial issue for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In laying out a roadmap for crisis-hit governments to move back towards balanced budgets, IMF lending programmes can often include exacting expenditure reduction targets. Broadly, two criticisms have been placed at the Fund’s door. First, it is suggested that these targets push countries – to borrow Shadow Chancellor Ed Ball’s favoured terminology – to cut ‘too far, too fast’, thereby damaging their long-term growth trajectory. Second, it is suggested that the social impact of cuts is often given insufficient attention, with the burden falling most heavily on the most vulnerable.

There is a large and growing literature examining the first issue.[2] Indeed, in their recent Working Paper, the IMF’s Oliver Blanchard and Daniel Leigh have suggested that the negative growth effects of spending cuts may have been under-estimated by policymakers when responding to the Global Financial Crisis.[3] There is also a notable body of work examining the second issue.[4] However, a recent operational shift at the IMF provides a timely opportunity for re-evaluation.

In July 2009 the IMF Executive Board approved new Guidelines on Poverty Reduction, setting out a series of practices that staff should endeavour to uphold. Amongst these standards, staff arranging loan conditions with low-income countries were directed to ensure that expenditure targets were included that allowed for levels of social spending (education and health expenditure) to remain stable or rise through the course of a programme. Prior to this intervention, the use of this type of ring-fence occurred rarely in arrangements with low-income countries; after this intervention, they became a near-ubiquitous feature. While on the surface this shift seems to represent unambiguously good news, deeper investigation is called for to more completely assess this shift.

First of all, there is a question of the volume of spending being protected. By comparing social spending targets with pre-programme patterns of education and health spending, we find that just over half of the targets are set higher than pre-programme levels. So, we can conclude that a majority of the targets – albeit a slight one – should be considered to be meaningful.

Second of all, what about the on-the-ground effects of these targets? Can we be sure that ‘good’ social spending that is effectively directed towards vulnerable groups and used efficiently is resulting, rather than ‘bad’ social spending that either redistributes upwards or is wasted? To this question, which is arguably the more important of the two, we currently have no answer. While the IMF has begun to draw on figures related to social spending as evidence of its increasing effectiveness as an agent of poverty reduction,[5] more detailed in-country research is needed before we can confidently judge the substance of this claim. 

Issues surrounding the IMF and international politics are explored in several modules in the Department of Politics, including the third year Governing the Global Economy and second year Politics of Development offerings.

---

[1] For a full version of the argument, see Clegg, L. (2014) ‘Social spending targets in IMF concessional lending: US domestic politics and the institutional foundations of rapid operational change’, Review of International Political Economy ifirst: 1-29. 

[2] See, for example, Vreeland, J. (2003) The IMF and Economic Development (Cambridge: University Press); Dreher, A. (2006) ‘IMF and Economic Growth: The Effects of Programs, Loans, and Compliance with Conditionality’, World Development 34(5): 769-88. 

[3] Blanchard, O. and D. Leigh (2013) ‘Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers’, IMF Working Paper WP/13/1: 1-43. 

[4] See, for example, Walton, J. and D. Seddon (1994) Free Markets and Food Riots (Oxford: Blackwell); Oxfam (2003) The IMF and the Millennium Development Goals: Failing to Deliver (London: Oxfam). 

[5] Clegg, L. (2012) ‘Post-crisis reform at the IMF: learning to be (seen to be) a long-term development partner’, Global Society 26(1): 61-81.

Gender, Neoliberalism, and Financial Crisis Postgraduate Conference at the University of York

Sydney Calkin recently organized and hosted an international postgraduate conference on feminist politics and the financial crisis.

The politics of austerity and crisis are deeply gendered and open up a wide range of feminist debates around neoliberalism, resistance, and gender justice.  The Gender, Neoliberalism, and Financial Crisis Postgraduate Conference, which took place at the University of York on 27 September 2013, sought to map the multiple impacts of financial crisis, austerity, and neoliberalism on women and to articulate an alternative feminist agenda. It brought together researchers from around the world working on feminist political economy, sociology, development studies, economics, and related disciplines to present their findings and development networks for future research collaboration.

In their opening keynote address, Diane Elson and Ruth Pearson delivered two closely linked papers that first considered the impact of the financial crisis and austerity policies on women and then moved to suggest alternative, gender just economic arrangements. While they encouraged feminist researchers to continue to document the deficiencies and obstacles embedded in neoliberal gender regimes, they also challenged feminists to move beyond critique to articulating alternative anti-neoliberal economic discourses and policies. In the closing keynote address, Sylvia Walby echoed this sentiment, demonstrating the importance of articulating a gender growth model, using feminism as a counter hegemonic project to critique and dismantle the current neoliberal gender regime. To this end, she proposed a social democratic gender regime with high levels of female wage labour and political representation, substantial public expenditure on welfare and state provision of health, education, and care services. A recording of Diane Elson and Ruth Pearson’s opening keynote address is available for download and streaming here: https://soundcloud.com/genderconfyork/elson-and-pearson-keynote

Panels throughout the day presented a diverse range of perspectives on gendered neoliberalism and austerity, both demonstrating the impact of the financial crisis and advocating alternative approaches to the current political and economic gender regimes. From a feminist institutionalist perspective, several researchers presented findings on gender equality policy in governmental and financial institutions, from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to the European Union and Macedonian government. Others examined the impact of austerity on the third sector and feminist organizations in particular. Both groups of researchers, those concerned with government and civil society, articulated a trenchant critique of neoliberalization of government policy and the impact of austerity on funding, policy, and discourse. In particular, they challenged the dominance of reductive efficiency-based gender policy, evident in the popular ‘business case’ for gender equality narratives which render equality a function of economic growth strategies and marginalize transformative approaches. Particularly invisible in discourses of crisis and austerity is the role of social reproduction and its value; another strand of researchers challenged the marginality of social reproduction from dominant political discourses and sought, through a variety of methodological approaches, to demonstrate the value and impact of social reproduction.

The postgraduate work presented here reflects the continuing significance of some enduring feminist debates and also opens up new directions for feminist research. Given the range of disciplinary backgrounds, methodological approaches, and subject matter, the conference contributions demonstrated the diversity of feminist research and articulated a coherent and compelling narrative of feminist analysis on the financial crisis and resistance to the politics of austerity. The conference succeeded in bringing together postgraduates from around the world to establish research connections with each other and to meet leading researchers in the field; I hope it will generate enduring research networks and facilitate future collaboration among young feminist scholars. This conference was funded in part by the Politics Department (alongside the York Annual Fund, Political Studies Association, and York Graduate Students’ Association). It would not have been possible without the support of Lisa Webster, Caroline Carfrae, and Carole Spary, so many thanks to them for their support.

Gender, Liberalism and Financial Crisis - Call for Participation

Gender, Neoliberalism, and Financial Crisis Postgraduate Conference

University of York, 27 September 2013

genderconferenceyork.wordpress.com

Keynotes: Diane Elson (Essex), Ruth Pearson (Leeds), Sylvia Walby (Lancaster)

Call for participants: 

This is an invitation for University of York students and staff to attend the Gender, Neoliberalism, and Financial Crisis Postgraduate Conference this September.

It is one-day conference bringing together presentations from MA, PhD, and post-doc researchers from the UK and beyond. The conference examines the connections between gender, political economy, and development, with a special focus on the impact of financial crisis. 

This conference will be of special interest to students studying politics, economics, gender studies, sociology, development, and philosophy and to students who are members of political clubs. Undergraduates and postgraduates are encouraged to attend, to see presentations from engaging young researchers, to see the keynote speakers, and to get a better idea of what postgraduate research is like. We really encourage student to attend the conference and join in the discussions! 

Please see the website for more information on the day's events. Tickets (£10 each, including lunch) can also be purchased from the site. Tickets will go on sale from 1 June 2013. 

Please see more info at  genderconferenceyork.wordpress.com or contact Sydney Calkin (sac525@york.ac.uk), the conference convenor.