Toward a post‐neoliberal social citizenship?

Since the financial and economic crisis started in 2008, acceptability of neoliberalism is increasingly challenged. Arguably, current situation can be described Gramscian terms (Gramsci, 1971) as hegemonic (Caruso, 2016; Stahl, 2019). Thus, while remaining dominant, has lost its legitimacy: The ruling classes still rule, but they no longer enjoy consensus ruled. This rupture between “people” political elites visible citizens’ abstention elections low membership rates parties (Mair, 2006), rise “populism” (D'Eramo, 2013; Mouffe, 2005; Streeck, 2017; Wilson & Swyngedouw, 2014) emergence social movements for justice democracy (della Porta, 2015; Glasius Pleyers, Kaldor Selchow, Tejerina et al., 2013). like Gramsci's times, we face today a “crisis politics,” which produces “new crossroads” “authoritarianism”—represented by nationalist xenophobic populism—and “democratization” 2016, p. 156; Fraser, Rehmann, 2016). Against this background, ideal citizenship may especially important building progressive alternatives to (Revi, 2014). scholarly literature emphasized that neoliberal context, under pressure (e.g., Kurachanis, 2020; Taylor-Gooby, 2008). In particular, given substantive evidence welfare retrenchment austerity erode (Edmiston, 2017), contemporary efforts develop have focused on improving policy generosity, most notably through “social investment” agenda. new model seems enable reinforcement post-industrial, globalized, knowledge-based economy (Evers Guillemard, Social investment aims rebuild around enhancement individuals” human capital their inclusion labor market, emphasizing both returns policy. agenda now emerged one dominant frameworks reform at global level, being highly influential among EU international organizations, such OECD World Bank, well scholars (Deeming Smyth, 2019; Esping-Andersen, 2002; Hemerijck, 2018; Jenson, 2010, 2017a; Mahon, 2010; Young Jun 2021). debate relationship focuses degree generosity: provides an alternative because it promotes rather than implementing measures (Abrahamson, Deeming Ferrera, Morel 2012; Perkins 2005). same vein, distinct versions are differentiated basis generosity degree: While social–democratic version combines compensatory policies (social protection) with centered enhancement, “Third Way” partially replaces former latter, thereby providing weaker break 2012). However, framing manner overlooks logics normative–epistemological assumptions inform promotion. Indeed, enhancing constitutes indispensable step overcoming neoliberalism, insufficient. paper, I argue view equates post-neoliberal promotion problematic involves limited understanding citizenship—which identified benefits services—and defined retrenchment. Drawing from normative paper thus contributes how theorizing after neoliberalism. organized follows. next section builds various theories importance political–democratic dimension. third section, drawing refined interpretation latter goes beyond narrow identification does not necessarily involve “quantitative” reduction also interrogate “qualitative” dimension policy, i.e., logic informs policies, goals these pursue social–political processes generate them. From viewpoint, entails marginalization citizenship. Using framework, fourth fifth sections propose theory social–inclusive distinguishing them Finally, conclusion elaborates some implications framework work scholars. It always valuable intensely practical consider where our conduct stands relation ideal, since way try improve. essential take approach … more common one, scale down definitions so conform what easily achieve. That lies complacency, self-congratulation, absence concern identify ways weakened. represents just set services. For example, fact often been promoted authoritarian regimes (Mares Carnes, 2009) suggests should something different mere provision services benefits. implies specific “welfare ought viewed” (King Waldron, 1988, 422, emphasis original). perspective, two aspects: inherent component result democratic practice. Before going into details dimensions, let me emphasize here presented below embraces “radical” (Cohen Fung, 2004). internally heterogenous,11 do space discuss conceptions broadly share ideal—and tensions “participatory,” “deliberative,” democracy, see, e.g., Barber (1984), Laclau Mouffe (1985), Habermas (1994), Wolin Benhabib (1996), Elster (1998), Dryzek (2000), (2002), Parkinson Mansbridge (2012), Pateman (2012). conceptualization seeks “fuller realization values” respect “conventional” minimalist “competitive representation,” whereby citizens advance private interests voting representatives regular compete governing 2004, 23). radical endorses participation deliberation promoting three goals: reinforcing accountability representatives, increasing equality, enabling collective self-government good pp. 24–27). Hence, following main highlight conceived participatory deliberative practices. only addressees authors simultaneously “addressees” “authors” laws stems his “co-originality” thesis, affirms individuals’ basic rights liberties coherently related participation, public autonomy interdependent require each other Habermas, 2001). perspective without problems Cooke, 2020), address discussion here. What believe remains convincing co-originality thesis insight binding norms effectively legitimately real struggle actors arena actual deliberation/contestation affected top-down governance (Schaffer, 2015). With premise mind, turn dimensions ideal. first components democracy. full society gives substance civil otherwise would formally granted, reality privilege wealthy educated. conception long tradition: Safeguarding equality status is, central theme Marshall's (Marshall, 1950). aspect establishment preconditions democracy: goal sustain or “equal citizenship” (Anderson, 1999). “we associate concept will radically impoverished if not”: citizenship, “demands provision; cannot adequate attractive notion it” 423, highlights redistributing powers goods resources (de Leonardis, 1998, 86). Another implication seeing concerns rationale “to making “a proposal about handled society”: people provided need “supplication stigma” 422). principles solidarity noncontractual reciprocity, “charity” “contract” (Fraser Gordon, 1992). Charity “unilateral gift,” recipient claim, donor obligation “moral credit” giver stigmatization disrespect “taker,” perpetuating power asymmetries relationships dependency donors receivers 1992, 59). contrast, mutual obligations members community, legal value (Kohn, Individuals subjects objects benevolence. Moreover, differs moral charity “contract.” As Marshall (1950, 68) argues, supplants characterizes capitalism “status,” replacing “free bargain declaration right.” market. contracts voluntary interactions individuals within sphere based demands claims emanating sphere. market—like charity—tends reproduce inequalities, whereas equality. second less outcomes comes implemented. citizenship—as general—is bundle duties “practice” representing core (Bellamy, 2008; Isin view, process,” belongs realm “agency” “acting” field “ownership” “having”; active passive consumers services; closer property 175—178). requires practice “civil society,” ordinary opportunity participate shaping self-organized associations taking part deliberation. Following society, Fraser (1989, 301) defines “social” arena—noncoincident family, state—in “successfully politicized runaway needs get translated government provision.” discourses place developed. focus effective possibility definition “problems” “solutions,” participating co-construction 1998). point rights—even “human rights”—are artifacts naturally claim-making (Dean, 2015) “political function” “multiplier democracy”: matters satisfaction “public discourse rights,” kind want build 1999, 33–34). instead focusing role plays quality life families distribution respond individual needs, potential contribution states then “deliberative welfare,” institutionalizes debates “about well-being life” (Fitzpatrick, 2002, 167). Taken together, aspects above imply “reflexive” (Olson, 2006). On hand, establish guaranteeing equally equipped (i.e., necessary citizenship). actively politics conceive themselves coauthors Articulating “redistribution,” “recognition,” “participation,” beneficiaries, “subjects” “objects” (Lister, 2001, 2007). policies—at level functioning discursive frame—shape identity state, either undermining (Dósa, 2018). two-dimensional partly reflects historical development states, struggles composed associations, movements, cooperatives, societies, trade unions workers’ (Powell, 2009). policy” state” understood broadly. include rights. state “outside” regulation interest. respect, postwar order “embedded liberalism” (Ruggie, 1982) implied control, national relative pursuing policies. movement (esp. mass parties) gave voice people, democratization (Crouch, Crucially, despite merits approximations, concretization realize outlined above. (2013, 127–128) makes clear, arrangements treated beneficiaries clients citizens, excluded women, minorities, postcolonial peoples. remainder concerned studying undermines critique confused nostalgic compromise “golden age justice”—a blind eye serious gender- race-based oppressions sustained order” (Cahill Konings, 2017, 120). Crouch (2004) possible interpret continuum concrete realizations distant Although represent justice, end “dedemocratization” (Brown, 2006; Freeman, Kiely, 2017) even greater departure difficulties finding base working class general interest democratization, decline strongly connected erosion “post-democracy,” inequalities return levels similar pre-democratic times scope provide exhaustive proposed interpretations relevant argument A strand ideology project aimed reaffirming capitalist (Duménil Lévy, 2004; Harvey, associated (especially big corporations) concentration income wealth 2011). Importantly, entail minimal subordination (Howell, liberalization financial) markets, lose compelled attracting investments: democratically responsive transformed “competition states” (Cerny, 1997; Jessop, 1993) accountable (financial) markets (Streeck, group scholars, Foucault (2008), identifies governmental rationality technologies self technocratic modes governance, reconstructing institutions market maximizing efficiency (Burchell, 1993; Dardot Laval, 2014; Donzelot, Lemke, 2001; ). “economization social,” analysis applied noneconomic areas utilitarian calculus extended whole society: Neoliberalism thus, adopts behavior all life. largely consequences: Governments invited think economists” (Zuidhof, 2014), scrutinizing actions application cost–benefit (Foucault, 246–247). “pro-efficiency” position “pro-market” view. mainstream economics recognizes relevance failures (Lapavitsas, 2005), call interventions economically efficient (Madra Adaman, case, retreat “economic 86), complements—and governs for—the enterprise itself, imposing competition, utility maximization activity, transforming entire world market-friendly environment 1993, 274–275). purpose points. First, neither “pro-elites” nor retrenchment: advancing “economization” project. (2008, 133) intervention planned economy; nature purposes logics) differs. Second, weakening (on tension see Ayers Saad-Filho, Biebricher, Mirowski, 2009; Vázquez-Arroyo, uses “post-democracy” mainly highlighting triggered increase corporations, used indicate caused spread intensification depoliticization insulate decisions accountability. Ritzi (2014, 181), “post-democratization” powerful politics. refers “denial contingency” (Flinders Wood, 2014, 135), choice. Depoliticization institutional levels. At options foreclosed any opposition appear irrational: becomes “technocratic” “managerial,” pushing issues necessity fate (Wood Flinders, 161–162). decision-making insulated pressures delegated agencies 135). economization 2014):Installing managerial submitting calculation, translate choices solved technical means, insulating crucial impeding formulation 2003; Clarke, highlighted consequences neglected impact use assesses effects including those cases neoliberalization occurs spite object quantitative terms, citizenship—including reform. interrogates qualitative interventions, i.e. nature, purposes, logics. refer “inclusive” (Amable, 2011; Craig Porter, Crouch, Dorlach, Ruckert, 2006) describing aim promote challenge post-democratic contrast austerity, agendas generally improve socioeconomic conditions, reducing disadvantage marginalization. combating poverty exclusion, tend—in continuity neoliberalism—to undermine seen informing approaches: pursued. attempts argued marginalized favor mixture key feature “philanthrocapitalism,” criteria charitable activities (McGoey, “socio–moral practices” reframed “business opportunity” values converge “value creation” (Shamir, 11–12). features assumption systematically lacks that, involving delivery financing appealing attitudes interests—or both. for-profit sector mobilized bonds (SIBs). allow invest costly homelessness, unemployment, recidivism. improvement generates savings budget, governments portion pay back investors (OECD, 3). SIBs socially desirable (WEF, 2013, 19). directly linked reform, reinterprets investments deliver (also) returns. least principle, SIBs-investors repaid when commissioner achieved. risk too high (if outcome reached investor loses investment), attract investments, (at partly) guaranteed. Goldman Sachs “Rikers Island SIB,” recidivism, was guaranteed 75% Bloomberg Philanthropies SIB failed achieve target, guarantee fund 18). foundations philanthropic funders developing markets. service providers financed nonprofit enterprises charities. organizations interact innovative connecting amounts “much simple funding” influences very (Dowling, 305–306). opportunities rendering profitable (Dowling Harvie, 880) neutral moves. (Bryan Rafferty, Chiapello Knoll, Cooper Dowling, Joy Shields, McHugh Sinclair 2019), forms, instruments tend to: encourage action produce quantifiable results; incite simplify complex sake establishing performance indicators; legitimize cost-reducing; endorse pro-market entrepreneurial culture, encouraging delivering adopt business-like