JOURNAL ISSUE 17.4

Fall 2008

 

 

NEOLIBERALISM AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR SOCIAL WORK

 

 Christian Stark,

Studiengang Sozialarbeit Studiengangsleitung SDL

(Soziale Dienstleistungen für Menschen mit Betreuungsbedarf)

FH OÖ Studienbetriebs GmbH

Garnisonstr.21

4020 Linz

 

 

An attempt to define neoliberalism

Coined by the economists Friedrich August von Hayek, Wilhelm Röpke, Walter Eucken, an others at a conference in Paris in 1938, the term neoliberalism was developed as an economic counter-concept to Keynesianism.[1] The economic theory of John M. Keynes stated that the deficits of capitalism were in the inability of the market to set up an effective production and distribution system which would ensure security for the whole of the population. In view of this inability, Keynes claimed that complementary intervention by the state was necessary.[2]

Although Friedrich A. von Hayek can be seen as the founder of neoliberal ideas, there is no one school of neoliberal thought. On the contrary, there is a manifold, institutionalized network, where different manifestations may exist side by side. The central theory of neoliberalism is based on neoclassic theory and the monetarist principles of the Chicago school. Negt describes neoliberalism as capitalism which has been freed from all democratic and social inhibitions and scruples:

 

Nowadays, for the first time, capitalism finds itself in a situation in which the logic of capital works in exactly the way that Marx described. For the first time the logic of capital has been freed from all the inhibitions which have long been applied both internally and externally.[3]

 

Neoliberalism can be described as an economic project for the capitalist elite, the main points of which will be described in the following section.

 

 

Main elements of neoliberal thought

The economization of all areas of life – the universal organization of the market

The principle of the neoliberal economy is claimed to be valid for all areas of life. Altvater refers to the imperialism of the economy.[4] All areas of life are subject to the logic of the market, the logic of economic optimization and the individual maximization of utilization. Even the individual is seen in the light of the logic of the market – transformed into human capital. The individual becomes an entrepreneur. A person becomes a firm, to a constantly self-optimising ‘I, Ltd.’. The relationship to him- or herself and others is seen only in terms of money.

 

 

The lean state: less state, more private enterprise?

According to neoliberal thought, it is not the job of the state to act as an entrepreneur. The public sector should be limited in favour of the private sector. Privatization of nationalized companies is encouraged as well as that of national monopolies and holdings in telecommunications, transport, energy, and water industries. The state has to fulfil the tasks defined by the neoliberal economists. Its function is to ensure and secure the conditions necessary for the free market. Under the neoliberal concept, the welfare state becomes a national competitive state whose function is, through its policy, to ensure that it remains competitive in the world market. The state therefore furthers neoliberal private business interests.

 

 

Economic globalization

Neoliberal thinking endorses globalization as the encouragement of free trade between the states, either through global organizations such as the WTO, with its agreements such as GATT, GATS or TRIPS, whether supporting free trade or special business zones. Borders should be opened for the global transport of goods, services, capital, and investment. Regulations and laws which hinder free trade, such as protective duties or state subsidies to certain branches of the economy, should be eliminated, as they are an obstacle to investment. Globalization is seen as a process of natural growth which forces industrial states to lower both social and environmental standards in order to remain competitive in the world market. The dismantling of social services and the reduction of the state deficits, which are seen as a handicap to performance, are a means to this end. However, these measures are only carried out for as long as they serve the purpose of neoliberal economies: countries of the Third World are required to provide free trade, and at the same time protective duties are set on goods from these countries in the USA, and also agriculture in the EU is highly subsidized.

 

 

Deregulation

Deregulation does not mean the relinquishing of state regulations, but rather that they concentrate on supporting competitive economic performance and profit from capital. In order to encourage investment and competitiveness, taxes for companies are reduced and obstacles such as worker representatives and state intervention are minimized. Regulations concerning health and safety or environmental protection are seen both as obstacles to investment and limiting the freedom of the market for the entrepreneur.

What kind of freedom for the entrepreneur is required? The freedom to exploit workers? The freedom of the wolf to poach among the free chickens in the free chicken coop? Unlimited autonomy for those owning money and the means of production is to be enforced against the interests of the majority of the population.

 

 

Neoliberalism and social policy

In neoliberal thought poverty is seen as a destiny brought upon oneself; it is basically a just punishment for refusing to work or for the inability to sell oneself or one’s work successfully on the free market. Thereby, the state and enterprises are relieved of the responsibility for realising ethical or social principles as this is solely the responsibility of the individual: ‘Indeed a major aim of the liberal is to leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with’, according to Friedman.[5]

Creating mass unemployment or leaving people to starve is not seen as a lack of help, but as a side effect of the free market and as such is beyond criticism.[6] The only social responsibility of enterprises is, according to Friedman, to make profit for the shareholders:

 

There are few developmental tendencies which can undermine the foundations of our society as thoroughly as the idea that businesses can have any other responsibility other than to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders.[7]

 

Friedrich A. von Hayek claims not to understand the term ‘social’ at all:

 

I have spent more than 10 years searching intensively for the meaning of the term ‘social justice’. I have failed in this or, rather, I have come to the conclusion that the term has no meaning for a society of free people … Social does not refer to a definable ideal, but today only serves to take away the meaning of the regulations of free society, to which we all have to be grateful for our affluence. Even if some people will be horrified to hear it, I have to say that I cannot think ‘socially’, because I do not understand what that means.[8]

 

Demands for social justice limit the right to unlimited private property. Altruism and solidarity are described as low collective morals and tribal instincts, and according to Darwin’s social evolution theory they are even a rebellion against higher standards of civilization and to be seen as amoral.[9]

 

 

The formation of the neoliberal project

The formation of the neoliberal project – after the downfall of the classical liberalism in the first third of the 20th century – can be traced to the 1930s when economists came together in 1938 at the aforementioned conference in Paris, under the leadership of Friedrich von Hayek, in order to found a counter-concept to Keynesianism. In 1947, Hayek founded the Mont Pelerin Society as a think tank in order to propagate and further his ideas.

As a consequence, an international network of foundations (e.g. the Heritage Foundation in 1973 in Washington DC), institutes (the Institute of Economic Affairs, 1971, in London), research centres, print media, academics, and PR agents was founded, devoted to the cause of neoliberal ideology. The political breakthrough was achieved with the help of a series of Nobel Prize winners for Economics – awarded for the first time in 1969. Among those were a number of neoliberal economists such as Friederich von Hayek in 1974 and Milton Friedman in 1976.[10] In this way neoliberal thinking achieved control of the discourse in economics and was exported into the area of practical politics and among the movers and shakers in the media influencing all areas of life.

Chile was the laboratory in which neoliberal economic policies were first tested. From 1975, the so-called Chicago Boys, the representatives of the Chicago school, were able to undertake a neoliberal restructuring with the aid of the military junta of General Pinochet. The Chicago Boys under the tutelage of Milton Friedman accepted an extreme, authoritarian regime in support of their plan to introduce their model of an economy. Pinochet’s regime was considered extremely positive as a vehicle for the application of this model. De Castro, a member of this working group, was quoted in Il Mercurio (15 February 1976) as saying: ‘the real freedom of the person is only guaranteed by an authoritarian regime, which exercises its power by means of norms which are the same for all’.[11]

With the entry into office of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and the election of Ronald Reagan as US President in 1980, the neoliberals achieved the transfer of their project from the periphery to the centre. Reagan and Reagonomics and Thatcher and Thatcherism were the first significant political actors to apply neoliberal doctrines in industrial states. The breakdown of Soviet Communism was decisive in establishing neoliberalism as the dominant economic ideology.

 

 

The construction of a consensus – the acceptance of neoliberal thought

The pushing through of the neoliberal project was in the end due to the successful ‘Fabrication of a Consensus’.[12] The representatives of neoliberalism sought a more powerful grip on social definitions and ways of thinking. Poisonous tales about social abuses, debates about saving money and resources, and slogans were generalized and permeated the public consciousness. Gradually, both the individual and society were subjected to and accepted this ideological transformation.

In this sense, the mental poison of blackmail using slogans reflecting attitudes drives numerous economies into a race based on undercutting the competition. Talk of debates about savings is being misused to the shattering of the social state, and the talk of the abuse of the social system and of scroungers is a diversion from the really guilty party. It makes the victims the offenders, not the multinationals avoiding tax and the multimillionaires ruining the community. The victims themselves are being turned into the guilty: the unemployed, those on social security, are responsible for the empty public purse. Politicians and managers speak about having to ‘ tighten our belts’ about ‘living beyond our means’ while they themselves have filled their pockets.[13]

Labour law and social rights such as protection against unlawful dismissal, unemployment benefit, sick pay – not the private fortune of multimillionaires – have become the possession of the unexplained dismantling of laws protecting employees, while at the same time no attempt is made to make savings on the bureaucracy disciplining the unemployed and those on social security, or on the EU administration. The barbed slogans of neoliberal ideology are designed to undermine relations of social solidarity and to transform the solidarity to a profit-based dependence on those above and ruthlessness to those below.[14]

Social manifestations considered as negative are no longer denied, but rather regarded as socially unavoidable conditions, the so-called ‘material constraints’. Mrs Thatcher’s bon mot ‘There is no alternative’ underlines this alleged inevitability. Political dealing which is driven by specific interests is passed off as the unavoidable operation of anonymous forces pointing in the direction of the only possible and sensible way out.

These negative events bolstered by euphemistic forms of speech are represented as desirable: everything will be made flexible and rationalized. Impediments to investment will be removed, companies must become leaner and fitter, employees must be ‘released’. The worker, who is always available for work, can be called up at any time on an hourly or daily basis. Workers must become fitter, i.e. more productive, and for that they must be content with less pay.

The concept of reform which was associated with the former plan aimed at achieving more social justice, better educational opportunities and a social safety net is now a synonym for cuts in social services. Neoliberal myths and dogmas join up with these neoliberal toxic notions. It emerges as a type of new world religion with a claim to absolute validity, which is otherwise associated with various forms of religious fundamentalism. These dogmas and myths are reflected in slogans such as ‘We can no longer afford the welfare state’, ‘If the economy works well, everybody is better off’, and ‘Economic growth produces jobs’.

All of these toxic ideas and myths are chanted like mantras by politicians, economic experts and representatives of the media as long as the falsehood gives the lie to the truth. Bourdieu describes this process as ‘the symbolic imprint ... the journalists and ordinary citizens have had this repeated, which in a targeted manner has been brought into circulation by certain intellectuals’.[15] This explains why these septic concepts are so deeply anchored in the consciousness of the population, although their empirical experience of what is actually happening and numerous studies contradict them:[16]

 

  • The question concerning the ability to finance the welfare state is not a question of inadequate resources but of political will and distribution.
  • The current gulf between rich and poor – not only within the state but also between states – contradicts the dogma that a flourishing economy is a blessing for all and that growth brings jobs.
  • If companies make a profit, share prices rise, which means that not everybody is better off – only the boards of directors, the managers and the shareholders. Despite this, workers are laid off.
  • If the welfare and woe of an economy depends on the low wages or the additional costs of pension and social insurance payments, as the neoliberals argue, then countries such as Bangladesh and Somalia would have had full employment long ago and would be living in luxury.

 

 

Consequences for social work

The dismantling of the welfare state

One consequence of neoliberal politics is the dismantling of the welfare state and the deepening of the gulf between rich and poor, not only between states but also within states. Ulrich Beck observed in his book The Risk Society (1986) a social elevator effect which had lifted all classes and social strata together as one. In respect of the later development of the global community since 1986, it is more accurate to speak of a paternoster effect: to the extent that as one manages to rise, the other falls.[17] As a consequence, new forms of social difficulty have emerged and with them more tasks for social work, but in a context where resources have been either frozen or cut.

 

 

Economization of social work – new public management

Under the ‘economization of social work’, I understand the reality that social work has been subjected to the logic of the profit motive and the market. This is connected to strengthened methods and concepts of business management and running social work as a private company which has found an entry with its promises of more effectiveness and efficiency, and linked to that the visible improvement of quality in social work.

Since the beginning of the 1990s in Austria, managerialism has penetrated the area of community social policy under the label of ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) (the new control model of targeted management). NPM follows management rationalism in which public administration is regarded as a type of service industry in which there is an attempt to apply the instruments of modern management.

 

 

Competition instead of solidarity

Social associations and institutions have been transformed into companies based on managerial thinking and action by the use of performance-related contracts and invitations to competitive tender. This has led to the economization of institutions in which the philosophy of cost efficiency leads in turn to competitive relations between the social service organizations. Competition, in this context, has thus taken on a greater significance without sufficient public awareness that to a degree this has a destructive effect. Community organizations compete with each other and also increasingly with commercial suppliers of services. The central, provincial or local governments who pay the bills hence have expectations that increased competition will improve the efficiency of the staff and the effectiveness of the service provided, which above all will result in lowered costs.

This competition can lead to ‘creaming’ effects in the support system in the area of marginal groups, and specifically to the displacement of the weakest clients to the benefit of those more easily cared for, with positive results for these clients. Only those are treated and advised, those who have not crudely and negligently been the cause of their own plight, and for whom the sponsor can be charged in a cost-effective way. Accordingly, those responsible for supporting social rights become the individual purchasers of social services, who have to pay for these services which are determined by supply and demand.

Public goods, which the welfare state legally guarantees its citizens in respect of social provision ensuring life-conditions fit for human beings, have become goods which have to be bought. Citizens with inalienable rights have become economic citizens who have rights only over what they can buy. Social work’s clients have mutated into customers and as such they are themselves responsible for the causes of their difficulties, but above all for the solutions to their problems and with that their success or failure.

 

 

The economy before professionalism

In the analysis of the economic processes of social work since the 1990s too little attention has been paid to the fact that the point of departure is not the well-being of the client and an improvement in the quality of the social work but more the pressure to save resources. The economization of social work is a kind of Trojan Horse. Professional social work is used to follow aims inimical to the profession: cost savings instead of help related to need in promoting conditions of life fit for human beings.

Strict housekeeping, costs not professional diagnosis, principally determines what is said to be useful, efficient and feasible; as a rule making successful savings is placed before success in providing help. Social work is being driven by the logic of the administration of finance which finds expression in competitive contracts, the formalization of advisory and supervisory services as a product, similarly as in the standardized production of these services: instead of building a relationship with the client, social work is all about the most efficient possible management of the case. The result is that the social work activity and everything connected with it neglects the clients.[18]

 

 

The dynamic welfare state – ‘workfare’ instead of welfare

In place of an active welfare state, a dynamic welfare state is emerging. By means of the neoliberal neologisms such as ‘Promote and demand’, ‘Help only for the really needy’, ‘Get people moving towards self-help and using their own initiative’, and ‘an end to the state benefit mentality’, unemployment and poverty, according to the Social Darwinist canon, have become problems of the individual, of character weakness and a lack of readiness to perform in a job. In a crisis of unemployment where jobs but not those willing to work are missing, the pressure to work is strengthened by reference to such slogans without any attempt to improve the life chances of the socially disadvantaged.

Thus, the community becomes divided into a welfare state market on the one hand and a charity state on the other. Those citizens who can afford to, buy social security (i.e. care for the aged). In contrast, the ‘workfare’ state offers only a minimum of service protecting people from starving and freezing, who otherwise would be handed over to private charitable organizations. Although reference is made to ‘personal responsibility’, what is meant is an extra burden for those working and those receiving the lowest pensions.

‘Activation’ amounts in a broader context to a kind of authoritarian withdrawal of social rights: help to find work is transformed into threats of forced labour. Hence, the welfare state becomes a goal-oriented ‘workfare’ state which focuses on the functions of repression and social exclusion.[19]

 

 

The reaction of social workers

The reaction of social workers to the economization of the social sphere is varied. Kleve speaks of the ambivalent relation between social work and economization:[20]

 

The neo-liberal transformation of the welfare state community cannot from the perspective of the social worker be explicitly condemned nor greeted with pleasure.[21]

 

Dimmel refers to an adaptation position which does not criticize the economization of social work in the sense of its effectiveness, but rather the neoliberal understanding of it.[22]

Another strategy has described the economization as a largely untested adoption of business concepts and apparatus applied to social work. Neoliberal dogma is repeated parrot fashion, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the neoliberal economy is relatively uncritically presented without reflecting on where efficiency and effectiveness really stand in the equation. The public and private sponsors of social service departments bring in consultants who have no idea about social work but who believe they are qualified to evaluate whether jobs should be cut or not. Dimmel describes these cases as an assimilation position.[23]

A final reaction is the renewal of the socially-critical political function of social work.[24] Social work is understood as a ‘human rights profession’ as Staub-Bernasconi calls it.[25] Pierre Bourdieu offers the view that in this context social work is a refutation of the ‘neoliberal invasion’ oriented towards social justice.[26]

 

 

Conclusions

Peter Drucker, one of the most renowned management gurus, defined the difference between effectiveness and efficiency as follows: ‘To be effective is to work on the right things; to be efficient is to do the things right; to be efficient and effective means doing the right things, right’.[27] Drawing on this definition, I would like to ask the proponents of the neoliberal economy the following questions:

 

  • How effective and efficient is the world economy dominated by neoliberal ideology when 18,000 children starve every day, while at the same time food surpluses are destroyed?[28]
  • How effective and/or efficient is an economy which sees to the production and export of huge amounts of food in Third World countries as feed for European livestock while the local populations vegetate below subsistence level and to some extent starve?
  • How effective is a global economy which is destroying the environment and ruthlessly exploits labour in the interests of profit maximization and which is also responsible for 186 million children working in conditions not far from slavery to increase the profits of multinational companies?[29]

 

Other examples of how efficiently labour is exploited, the environment ravaged and public goods privatized can be found in detail in The Black Book – Privatization or Company Brands.[30] Almost daily we are informed, often by the media, how money is efficiently and effectively squandered by various companies. Is it really necessary for social work to orientate itself to these standards and lower itself to the level of neoliberal efficiency and effectiveness which is contemptuous of mankind? Social work should always raise the question of whether it is doing the right things and whether it is doing them right, and is should also reflect on and evaluate them in a scientific and professional manner. Yet this should not be under the overall control of managers and business management fetishists for whom efficiency means profit maximization and effectiveness means only to ‘do the job as economically as possible’.

The logic of social work is not the logic of the market and profit. Whether or not someone receives the means to lead a life fit to be lived must not be decided by the market. Social work is not a service with the same character as saleable goods, but the result of the collective effort of all involved – social worker and client – in a simultaneous arrangement and management of circumstances which make the success of the endeavours more likely. Business management is at most a complementary science and must not be allowed to become the science leading social work.

Social work as an integral part of social policy must be understood as more than a repair company for the amelioration of negative social and economic consequences. For social work this means that in the context of the analysis of causes of social problems and their solution social workers must direct their attention towards structural social factors, publicize them, and propagate them in current socio-political debates, and thereby construct a critical, alternative public domain. A better-integrated network of social workers and social institutions could generate pressure on responsible politicians so that social workers’ concerns are noted and taken seriously. A central aim of social work must be the capacity to resist any further worsening of the basic social conditions in the form of cuts in social services.[31] For the IFSW (International Federation of Social Work), this is also a central task of the professional operation of social work:

 

Social workers have the duty to draw the attention of their clients, decision makers, politicians and the public to situations in which resources are inadequate or the distribution of resources standards and practices is oppressive, unjust or damaging. [32]

 

 

References

 

Altvater, Elmar (1981): Der gar nicht diskrete Charme der neoliberalen Konterrevolution. Prokla 44, pp. 5–23.

Blankenburg, Stephanie (1997): Der Neoliberalismus als theoretisches Konzept und Wegbereiter des modernen Rechtsextremismus. Freier Markt und Meinungsführerschaft. In: Schui, H., Ptak, R., Blankenburg, S., Bachmann, G. & Kotzur, D. (eds.): Wollt ihr den totalen Markt? Der Neoliberalismus und die extreme Rechte. München, pp. 53–111.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1998): Der Mythos ‘Globalisierung’ und der europäische Sozialstaat. In: Bourdieu, P.: Gegenfeuer. Wortmeldungen im Dienste des Widerstands gegen die neoliberale Invasion. Konstanz, pp. 39–52.

Butterwegge, Christoph (2006): Globalisierung, demographischer Wandel und Sozialarbeit im Wohlfahrtsstaat, URL: www.sozialearbeit.at; butterwegge_wandelsozialarbeit.pdf (7.01.2007).

Chomsky, Noam & Achbar, Mark (1996): Wege zur intellektuellen Selbstverteidigung. Medien, Demokratie und die Fabrikation von Konsens. München.

Die Armutskonferenz/ATTAC/BEIGEWUM (2004): Was Reichtümer vermögen. Gewinner und VerlierInnen in europäischen Wohlfahrtsstaaten. Wien.

Dimmel, Nikolaus (2006): Verbetriebswirtschaftlichung, Privatisierung und sozialarbeiterisches (Doppel)Mandat – ein Bermuda-Dreieck der sozialen Arbeit? URL: www.sozialearbeit.at (7.1.2007).

Drucker, Peter (1955): The Practice of Management, New York, URL: http://www.qualisci.com/aboutus.asp?xYu3P=bcpvuvt (7.1.2007).

Dixon, Keith (2000): Die Evangelisten des Marktes. Die britischen Intellektuellen und der Thatcherismus. Konstanz.

Food and Agriculture Organization (2005): The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Friedman, Milton (1962): Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago; zit. n. Rösch, Michael (o.J.): Was verstehen wir unter Neoliberalismus? URL: tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/barrios/themeA2a-dt.html - 14k – (7.1.2007).

Friedman, Milton (1971): Kapitalismus und Freiheit. Stuttgart.

Gerlach, Thomas (2000): Denkgifte. Psychologischer Gehalt neoliberaler Wirtschaftstheorie und gesellschaftspolitischer Diskurse, Dissertation, Universität Bremen, URL: www.kritische-psychologie.de/texte/tg2000a.pdf (7.1.2007).

Haug, Wolfgang Friedrich (1996): Das neoliberale Projekt, der männliche Arbeitsbegriff und die fällige Erneuerung des Geschlechtervertrags. Das Argument 217, pp. 683–696.

Haupert, Bernhard (2005): Gegenrede: Wider die neoliberale Invasion der Sozialen Arbeit, URL: http://www.qualitative-sozialforschung.de/haupert.htm (7.1.2007).

Hennecke, Hans Jörg (2000): Friedrich August von Hayek. Die Tradition der Freiheit. Düsseldorf.

IFSW (2004): Ethics in social work, Adelaide, URL: www.sozialarbeit.at (7.1.2007).

International Labour Organization (2002): Jedes Kind zählt. Genf.

Kleve, Heiko (2003): Sozialarbeitswissenschaft, Systemtheorie und Postmoderne. Freiburg i.B.

Kleve, Heiko (2006): Systemisches Case-Management. SiÖ 1, xxx–xxx.

Kruse, Jan (2004): Soziale Arbeit als disziplinierende Simulation. Eine kritische Analyse der Ökonomisierung Sozialer Arbeit. Soziale Arbeit 7, pp. 256–262.

Kulbach, Roderich (2000): Ökonomisierung sozialer Arbeit. Soziale Arbeit 1, pp. 16–21.

Kurz, Robert (2001): Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus. Ein Abgesang auf die Marktwirtschaft. München.

Lindenberg, Michael (2000): Von der Sorge zur Härte. Kritische Beiträge zur Ökonomisierung Sozialer Arbeit. Bielefeld.

Michalitsch, Gabriele (2002): Was ist Neoliberalismus? URL: www.attac.at/uploads/media/neoliberalismus_michalitsch_02.pdf (7.1.2007).

Negt, Oskar (1997): Neuzugänge zum Marx’schen Denken. Z.: Zeitschrift Marxistische Erneuerung 30, pp. 38–46.

Reimon, Michel & Felber, Christian (2003): Schwarzbuch Privatisierung, Wien.

Rösch, Michael (o.J.): Was verstehen wir unter Neoliberalismus, URL: tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/barrios/themeA2a-dt.html - 14k – (7.1.2007).

Schmidt, Roland & Klie, Thomas (1999): Folgen der Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Theorie und Praxis der Sozialen Arbeit 1, pp. 14–17.

Schnurr, Stefan (2005): Managerielle Deprofessionalisierung? Neue Praxis 3, pp. 239–242.

Staub-Bernasconi, Silvia (1995): Systemtheorie, soziale Probleme und Soziale Arbeit: lokal, national, international oder: vom Ende der Bescheidenheit. Bern/Stuttgart/Wien.

Stiglitz, Josef (2003): Schatten der Globalisierung. München.

Valdés, Juan Gabriel (1995): Pinochet’s Economists. The Chicago School in Chile. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne.

Werner, Klaus & Weiss, Hans (2006): Das neue Schwarzbuch Markenfirmen. Die Machenschaften der Weltkonzerne. Wien/Frankfurt a. Main.

WIFO (2006): WIFO-Weißbuch. Mehr Beschäftigung durch Wachstum auf Basis von Innovation und Qualifikation, Wien, URL: http://test.wifo.ac.at/wwa/servlet/wwa.upload.DownloadServlet/bdoc/S_2006_WEISSBUCH_ZUSAMMENFASSUNG_27639$.PDF

Wilke, Gerhard (2002): John Maynard Keynes. Frankfurt a. Main.

Wilken, Udo (1998): Faszination und Elend der Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Blätter der Wohlfahrtspflege 11–12, pp. 226–230.

 



[1] cf. Hennecke (2000): pp. 137–139; Dixon (2000): pp. 7–9.

[2] cf. (more comprehensively): Wilke (2002): pp. 30–126.

[3] Negt (1997): p. 38.

[4] cf. Altvater (1981): p. 15.

[5] Friedman (1962): p. 12.

[6]cf. Gerlach (2000): p. 1 ff.

[7] Friedman (1971): p. 176.

[8] Hayek (1979): p. 16, cited in Kurz (2001): p. 752.

[9] cf. Blankenburg (1997): p. 79.

[10] cf. Michalitsch (2002): p. 1 ff.

[11] Cited acc. Valdés (1995): p. 51.

[12] Chomsky & Achbar (1996).

[13] cf. Gerlach (2000): p. 5.

[14] cf. Gerlach (2000): p. 5.

[15] Bourdieu (1998): p. 39.

[16] cf. u.a. WIFO-Weißbuch (2006); Reimon & Felber (2003); Stiglitz (2003); Die Armutskonferenz/ATTAC/BEIGEWUM (2004).

[17] cf. Butterwegge (2006): p. 6.

[18] cf. Schnurr (2005): p. 239 ff.

[19] cf. Dimmel (2006).

[20] cf. Kleve (2003): pp. 46–51.

[21] Kleve (2006): p. 14.

[22] cf. Dimmel (2006).

[23] cf. Dimmel (2006).

[24] cf. Haupert (2002); Lindenberg (2000); Kruse (2004).

[25] Staub-Bernasconi (1995): p. 57 ff.

[26] Bourdieu (1998).

[27] Drucker (1955).

[28] cf. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2005): p. 6 ff.

[29] cf. International Labour Organization (ILO) (2002).

[30] Werner & Weiss (2006); Reimon & Felber (2003).

[31] cf. Butterwegge (2006): p. 15.

[32] IFSW (2004).


 

 

Back to Top

Copyright for the I.U.C. Journal of Social Work Theory and Practice is owned by the Social Work Program, Department of Social Relations and Services, Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota, USA. One copy may be made (printed) for personal use; teachers may make multiple copies for student use if the copies are made available to students without charge. Permission must be secured from the editors for sale of any copies of articles or for any commercial use of the material published in the Journal.
2001 Copyright BSU/IUC Journal of Social Work Theory & Practice