Global Transformation and Local Counter Movements: The Prospects for Democracy Under Neoliberalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares Mexico and India’s experiences with neoliberalism to propose that the collapse of the developmentalist state generates countermovements. In both nations, neoliberalism is associated with the decline of the one-party dominant system, and a restructuring of civil society. Variations emerge in the timing of democratization in these countries. In India, democratization preceded neoliberal reforms, whereas in Mexico democratization followed neoliberal reforms, but in both cases democratization mitigates the effects of neoliberalism on civil society. Conclusions drawn from the comparative analysis of Mexico and India concur with Karl Polanyi’s proposition that there is a double movement of marketization and protectionist countermovements. The case studies suggest a pattern to these countermovements. Actors are confronted abruptly with threats to their well-being; not only economic threats but also environmental, political, and symbolic threats. The threatened value in each case is a former entitlement, typically a form of protection ensured by the state. Thus, even in the presence of countermovements, neoliberalism mediates a divergence of state and civil society relationships creating uncertain futures for democratic possibilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".