BurguesÃa alta de Bobbie

The critical of the Economic liberalism are of origin and of nature various and do not form a homogeneous unit. Some emanate from a mobility antilibérale, but of others find their source among liberals who claim installations of this economic doctrines.

Nature and origins of criticisms

a first unit is made of theoretical criticisms of the Libéralisme as a theory of organization of the Economic system in its totality.
a second unit is made of empirical critics, who condemn the consequences of the applications of the economic policies of the liberal theories.

Some critical result largely from the left Marxiste from XIXe and XXe centuries.
Some come from Keynes and the currents which continue more or less in its line (Post-keynésien, Néo-keynésien).
Of others is more recent and is partly related to the speech Altermondialiste.

Theoretical criticisms

Critical internal

Internal criticism accepts the conceptual framework of the neo-classic economy (self-determination of the agents, complete rationality of the individual, perfect information, efficiency of competition), and calls into question the inférences in favor of the economic liberalism which usually result from this.

This type of criticism accepts the only taking into account of individual freedom but stresses that the liberal theory wonders little about conditions of possibility of the exercise of this freedom. They are primarily three types of conditions:

the material possibility: the exercise of freedom supposes that the material circumstances do not deprive the individual of the possibility of choosing what it considers better for him. One can for example up to what point ask for a person in front of prostituer to be able to eat is free. Certain political currents took note of this problem and propose the introduction of a Revenu citizen, poured for example in the shape of a start-up capital (versed in the majority of the person) such as the individual can invest it to guarantee a minimal income without risk. This solution would allow that each individual leaves with the same material means (by supposing that there is no heritage).

the social possibility: the exercise of freedom supposes an equal capacity to process the data. This point raises the question of the education. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu thus built a theory of the habitus which would tend to reproduce the social inequalities. She would explain for example the small proportion of the children of workmen in master although the equality in right is the same one. Indeed, a child acquires capacities by the environment in which it grows, in particular the quality of education, which leads to a phenomenon of social Reproduction. The individuals would not leave on a foot equality and competition would be distorted.

the informational possibility: the exercise of freedom rests on the possibility of making choices informed as for their consequences. However, this condition is not met if information is imperfect and expensive to obtain. These imperfections make difficult to defend the idea of the effectiveness of the result of the free interactions between the agents.

The liberals recognize these limitations but refuse that they can be raised while limiting the legitimate freedom of the individuals, for example that to freely have its incomes or to send his/her children to the school of his choice.

Critical external

External criticism in one way or another calls into question the postulates supported by the economic liberalism, and generally by very short liberalism.

Dispute of the reality of its supposed basic postulates: absence of monopoly, accessible information to all and without cost, etc

Dispute of the primacy of freedom like value having to organize the company: the economic liberalism does not provide any prediction on the value of its result vis-a-vis requirements of equity or any other value claiming to a universal range, like the respect of human dignity. The critic considers that there exist typical locations where freedom is not the most fundamental point and where other values must prevail (equality, fight against exclusion, social advancement…). It is what makes it possible Jacques Testart to say: “The economic liberalism is well the enemy of humanism. ”

Disputes based on the Marxist analysis : this one disputes any relevance with the postulates which it lends to the economic liberalism. According to this criticism:

This theory would tend to perpetuate the initial inequalities, and a posteriori would be only one construction to justify the economic domination of the holders of the Capital on the hard-working .
They are often richest which is liberal, which raises the question of the real motivations of the liberals. The economic liberalism would be then a doctrinal preparing to justify a behavioral selfishness.
the economic liberalism would be only one phase of transition and cannot be a perennial system.

Criticisms on the concrete applications

The critics following address themselves to the application of decisions claiming economic liberalism. These decisions never not constituting that an application partial of an overall project, the liberals can assert that the dysfunctions come owing to the fact that the remainder of the economic system, policy and social does not completely observe the rules of the economic liberalism.

Critical on the speculation

By prohibiting any control on the markets other than those guaranteeing their existence (legal system, “police force of the purse”, defense system of the property rights…), the economic liberalism is shown to leave the free field to the speculators.
On the economic plan, the Speculation, which brings liquidity to the markets and in general of the corrections of price except speculative bubbles, but also a counterpart of financial cover, is not bad in oneself. Some reproach him however for being in the beginning certain economic crises (the Grande Depression of 1929, the Asian Economic crisis of 1997, the Argentinian Economic crisis of 1998…).

The liberalization of the markets saw the explosion of volume of the transactions and the speculation, including on significant credits like the Monnaie or the national Debt, gone supervised by the Central banks. N the other hand it allowed the development of tools of covering of the risks, like the financial contracts Dérivé S.

On the foreign exchange market, these movements are fed by hot money often higher while going up than monetary reserves of the States (practical used by Soros). They benefit from negligible differences in rate between two markets (Arbitrage) or on very weak variations of course from one day to another. This capital enters a Jeu to null sum, no additional richness being directly created, but however take part in a better allowance of the resources by a more realistic Foreign exchange rate subject to Perfect competition.
the same phenomenon intervenes on the market of the actions, with important practical consequences for the companies, which can see their quoted value crumbling, sometimes rightly, sometimes on a rumor.

On this discussed subject that is the speculation, certain liberals concede that it involves sometimes problems of allowance. They allot them to defects of information actors of the market, supposed to disappear in the long term, since they believe - in the case of gone perfect - in the “invisible Main” self-regulating. On the real markets, the phenomenon is probably more complex: cut speakers, independence or not actors, methods of control of the markets, etc the situation would not have thus necessarily vocation to naturally reabsorb.

American James Tobin, “Nobel Prize” of economy, considers prejudicial excesses which can strike the speculation. He had suggested controlling them by a tax to limit the speculative movements repeated in their making lose their financial interest of short term. The balance between the benefit and the disadvantages which this kind of tax would have is very discussed, as well as the rate at which it would be fixed (0,01% in the first proposal). Tobin since then gave up the idea.

Generally, the liberals regard themselves as the misunderstood one in connection with the speculation. They are convinced, contrary to their detractors, that the speculation is an always beneficial phenomenon. Indeed, with the eyes of the liberals, any voluntarily agreed exchange involves an enrichment of each part, even if this exchange with the appearance (countable and illusory) of a play with null sum. Indeed, the parts would not be granting the exchange if they did not find there an advantage. Thus, always with the eyes of the liberals, the speculators, who grow rich while devoting themselves to many exchanges, not only do not impoverish the other economic agents, but on the contrary enrich them very as much as they grow rich themselves and, at the same time, cleanse the market.

Critical of the retreat of the policy

The economic liberalism would deprive the Politique of means of action and by there the policy would transform into an appendix of the liberal market (because, if the policy does not act, the market will fill the need and will choose in its place). It is actually about a criticism against liberalism in general, since the retreat of the political power, its quartering at least, even its disappearance supplements for some (like the Libertariens), are the gasoline of liberalism.

The liberal idea rests on the principle of the contract between free parts. Those can negotiate and to arrive has a common agreement by the play of supply and. Such a system is obviously more legitimate than a system where a part imposes its point of view on the others at the conclusion of a battle (even only electoral). But in fact, it is practically impossible to obtain that a whole population agrees on a position at the appropriate time by simple bargaining, and it is even all the more difficult as it is more necessary. The Théorie of the public choice must take into account the problem of the legitimacy of a partially imposed choice.

On the matter, there is on both sides a petition of principle, which leads to an irreducible opposition and even to a complete incomprehension between the two positions.

the position antilibérale puts the source of any legitimacy in the community, which can, by political will, to delegate a part of it to the individuals in the form of a participation in the decision-making process (consultation by various channels, more or less wide right to vote…). A rule as that of the majority seems a bearable compromise and, within this framework, perfectly legitimate in all circumstances. The legitimacy of the policy is always unlimited, only practical limits exist.
the liberal position puts the source of any legitimacy in the individual alone; the individual can, by convenience and safety, to alienate part of his political capacity to the bodies, to adhere to the payments community, etc, but political legitimacy is only “derived”, lower. If, in practice, it is necessary that certain decisions are imposed (the best example being the legal decisions, which make inevitably at least dissatisfied), major principles put strict terminals so that it is possible to impose, and thus with legitimacy capacities, so much so that an even unanimous vote can not have any legitimacy if it transgresses the natural rights. In this framework, each one done what he wants of the political power, some proposing even to allow to sell of it or to buy…

of it

The critics, heirs to the father Henri Lacordaire, see in liberalism the introduction of the law of richest, a form of Ploutocratie. There is certainly a difference between a plutocracy and a political market: in a political market, the rich person must transfer part of his richness to his adversaries (and not only with his/her friends) to obtain a political decision in conformity with his wishes, which neither the plutocrats do, nor politicians spending of fortunes in Propagande. But the critics do not regard this difference as sufficient: from their point of view where the policy can all legitimately, it is quite obvious for them that the political investment is most profitable of the world, and that the winners would not have any evil to recover their setting, making political market a fools' deal for the salesmen of their right. Whereas, from the liberal point of view, this diversion is not possible, since the political power can only what is specifically deputy for him.

It will be noted that, so that criticism has a range, it should be supposed that the political bodies are legitimate. And that, paradoxically, this criticism generally emanates from people who estimate that the existing bodies are not enough democratic S, and thus not legitimate enough.

Critical concerning the public services

The two main difficulties to analyze the relevance of the Public services to the ell of the economic liberalism reside:

on the one hand, in the principle a priori , supported by the liberals, of “less State”;
in addition, on a technical plan, in the proposed measure, only financial, of the utility or the anticipated profits, which does not take in account social problems or of Town and country planning for example.

There are also other points in this analysis which are often criticized, such as for example the temporal horizon considered (generally the short term) or the postulate of a better economic management by the private one. Certain economists insist in addition on the positive externalities which the public services have on the economy, like the formation of a Main-d'oeuvre qualified by the services of education.

The report of financial not-profitability of an additional public service would thus justify for the liberals his abandonment or its transfer (accompanied in many cases by public allocations) to deprived by a process of Privatization.

The liberals advance the following arguments:

“less State”: on this point they support the equality in right, implying an equal access to regularly given public employment concerned (and not offered to perpetuity with an organization, it administrative and was supposed to incarnate the State); in practice the liberals limit the official sphere to the kingly Fonctions: the army, the police force, justice, the currency.
Public services: or these services are financially profitable, or they are not it. If they are not it, then their disappearance is a good, which will allow réallouer the resources (wasted) other more creative uses of profit. If these services are profitable, it is a question in this case of opening with competition these sectors, in order to facilitate the monetary profits and of avoiding the politicking use of the Plus-values. The management of the public services can be private, public or mixed, essence being that each one has the same schedule of conditions to respect, under control of the State, and that all can make an offer of service.
Utility: it is primarily through what people are ready to pay that one defines the utility of a service. For this reason, a community keeps any latitude to allow the fragile populations to reach these services, by the means of allowances, which must be conceived not to disturb the market:

by letting the recipients decide on the supplier to which they can be addressed;
by preferring a single allowance multi-uses (housing, food, transport, etc) rather than a multitude of specific allowances which create as many artificial and captive markets, or, worse still, of the attributions in kind managed by queue (and Copinage, corruption, etc); moreover, a single allowance is easier to manage as well for the administration as for the recipients, by definition little in position to juggle with the various and not very concordant conditions of multiple allowances;
by fixing the number of recipients in order not to give them a too important economic weight on the market, nor a political weight leading to “always more”, until the bursting of the system.

Critical on the distribution of the richness created

The economic liberalism would be favorable to already rich and unfavourable with poorest, within the nations (between social classes) and between nations. Indeed, richest the means would have of investing in a future enrichment, whereas poorest these means would not have. It would result from it an increase in variations in richness between the rich classes and the poorest classes and often a more important Paupérisation of the most stripped classes.

With the international level, the policies recommended by the Fonds international currency were shown to involve social consequences devastators and to increase poverty. The economist néo-keynésien Joseph Eugene Stiglitz thus reproached the IMF for making pass the interest of his “main thing Actionnaire”, the the United States, before those of the least favoured nations.

The liberals do not share this analysis:

On the theoretical level: as for the speculation, no political system is able - nor even legitimates - to dictate with each one the good way of living its life. So certain inequalities are to be fought, others are the fruit of different trajectories of life for which the responsibility would only remain individual. The liberals show also the systems which officially seek to prevent the inequalities, to maintain them or develop them.

With in more all the losses on translation of the political clout into economic force, which would harm the total richness of the company, the social Interventionnisme would be with final against-productive for poorest.

On the practical level: the liberals return to the examples Russian, Indian or Chinese, where the distribution, according to them, was with the departure even more unjust, and where economic progress is faster since their liberalization. Acceptor which the State is in load of the defense of the Private property and thus fight against the flight, the liberals admit in these cases that it intervenes to prevent that Mafias and others Oligarques do not monopolize the richnesses and do not build Monopoles.

Random links:

BurguesÃ­a alta de Bobbie