See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/375999245

The Paradox of Thinking Sustainable Development In A Neoliberal Age: A

Theoretical Perspective

Article · November 2023

CITATIONS READ

0 1

1 author:

Mohammad Azaharuddin Ansari

Kashi Naresh Government Postgraduate College, Gyanpur, Bhadohi, U.P. India
4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Azaharuddin Ansari on 29 November 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Paradox of Thinking Sustainable Development
In A Neoliberal Age: A Theoretical Perspective

Mohammad Azaharuddin Ansari*

Abstract
Development has conventionally been interpreted in terms of economic growth since
economic growth is considered as the engine of development. This thesis has its roots in
classical trickle-down theory according to which wealth accumulated by entrepreneurs
necessarily trickles down to the bottom strata of society. To achieve this end of higher
economic growth, neoliberal economic policies are accepted as the most effective means.
This understanding of development has been dominant in both, academic and policy-
making domains. With the help of neoliberal ‘dispositif ’, countries of the world undoubtedly
managed to maintain or achieve unprecedented higher rate of economic growth, but
this was not without cost. Obsession with higher rate of economic growth has itself bred
several issues like concentration of wealth, bio-diversity loss, sea-level rise, global warming,
deforestation etc. that are now posing grave threat to humanity. This flip side of traditional
growth-oriented development disillusioned a section of scholars as well as decision-makers
around the world. It was that disillusionment that ultimately crystallized in the birth of new
paradigm of sustainable development, a human-centric, inclusive, environment friendly
and equity-based development. The paradox is that this new model of development too is
being sought to achieve within the same neoliberal institutional framework, the very tenets
of which are at add with the aims of sustainable development. This research paper aims
at exposing the inherent contradiction that lies within neoliberal philosophy in respect to
sustainable development.
Key words: Hyper-consumerism, environmental degradation, inequality, neoliberal
economic policies, populism, sons of soil.
INTRODUCTION
Development is one of the most controversial concepts of the academic world and
it is this feature that makes it an “essentially contested concept”. It is different thing for
different people. The concept of development has been defined with several perspectives.
Literally, development refers to ‘advancement’ or ‘progress’ thus in order to produce a
sense, it is essential to use any specific adjective before it i.e. economic development,
social development and so on. Traditionally, in the discipline of economics, the concept
of development has been referring to economic development or economic growth. Thus
in academic, it is known as growth- oriented theory of development in which growth in

* Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, University of Allahahad. India. aazahar3@gmail.com

106 Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479

several macroeconomic indicators like GDP, GNP, employment, direct investment etc.
are considered as key indicators of development. With this narrow application, concept of
development has primarily been a subject of the discipline of economics. The entire edifice
of growth- oriented concept of development is based on classical ‘trickle-down theory’
that calls for adopting measures to liberate and incentivise entrepreneurs for accumulation
of wealth. The trickle- down theory claims that the effect of the accumulation of wealth
will necessarily trickle down to the bottom strata of concerned society. Thus, achieving
higher rate of economic growth is regarded as prime virtue. Once we accord higher rate
of economic growth prime importance, neoliberal economic policies become inevitable
because they are accepted as the most efficient tools for surplus production.
Now we proceed to shed some light on neoliberal philosophy. Neoliberalism is
basically an economic concept, however, its impact tends to spill over into other non-
economic sphere of life i.e. political, social, cultural, educational etc. Neoliberalism can
best be defined as a set of ideas or system of thought that stands for the transformation
of the state from the provider of public welfare (welfare state) to the facilitator and
promoter of market forces. To realize this transformation of the state, neoliberalism
supports several measures like cutting social expenditure, deregulation, privatization,
liberalization, austerity, free trade and so on. Since in the discourse of growth-oriented
development, growth in macroeconomic indicators is valued, process of privatization and
liberalization is regarded inevitable. Liberalization and privatization are the fundamental
weapons of neoliberalism that call for a minimal state, instead of what Roscoe Pound has
called the ‘service state’ because a minimal state, not the service state, is congruent with
free market capitalism. In minimal state, market forces are decisive. The proponents of
neoliberalism contend that market forces are better equipped with adequate incentive
and knowledge and on the basis of these advantages they praise the forces of liberalization
and privatization.
After the end of the Cold War, international economic structure went through a sea
change. The Cold War came to an end with the dissolution of the USSR. This incident
was interpreted by the scholars and policy makers around the world as triumph of the
Western capitalism. Francis Fukuyama has called this phenomenon as ‘the end of history’.
At the end of the Cold War, most of the states that were following planned economy were
suffering from economic stagnation, sky high inflation rate, drained foreign reserve etc.
The end of the Cold War coupled with the structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) of
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank compelled the developing and the least
developed countries to open their doors for international trade and investment. Most of
these countries including India, no doubt, achieved to a large extent success, with the
help of neoliberal economic policies, in securing unprecedented higher rate of economic
growth. But story did not come to an end at that point rather begins from there. However,
it is undisputable that the process of liberalization and privatization opened up the horizon
of new opportunities and possibilities but on the other hand, this obsession with achieving
or maintaining higher rate of economic growth bred such numerous issues that began to
call into question very viability of the narrow growth-oriented concept of development.
Indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources, environmental degradation, climate
change, global warming, deforestation, land degradation, sea-level rise etc are among
those consequences that have become threats and challenges to human security and well-

Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479 107

being (Matthew, Barnett, Macdonald & O’Brien, 2010). Consequently a fundamental
contradiction between development and security surfaced (Ansari, 2017). Keeping these
threats and challenges in view, a faction of theoreticians as well as policy makers opined
that if humanity continues to exploit natural resources at the same pace then the fruits
and sustainability of development would be uncertain. A common consensus regarding
destructive capacities of the narrow growth-oriented development began to occupy a
central place in environment-development discourse that eventually gave birth to the
new paradigm of development, the paradigm of sustainable development.
Although the term ‘sustainable development’ was first used by the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1980, it was the United Nations
World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) that
is credited with defining the term ‘ sustainable development’ in its famous report “Our
Common Future(1987).” The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development
as “The development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations: Our Common
Future, 1987). Although this definition is widely cited in academic but this definition is
highly vague. Determining the needs of present is an arduous job particularly in the age of
hyper-consumerism in which, as Oscar Wilde has righty summed up, unnecessary things
are our only necessities. Moreover, the mystery of successfully running of neoliberal
economy lies in its success in uninterrupted creation of false needs and then satisfying
these false needs. Similarly knowing the needs of future generation is also as arduous as
determining the present’s needs. And if we cannot know the exact nature of future needs,
then it is hard to determine which current human action compromises the ability of
future generation regarding meeting their own needs. The dust of this vagueness around
the concept of sustainable development needs to be removed. This point will be further
explored later in this piece of writing.
This research paper aims at underlining the inherent contradiction lies in reverie
regarding contemplating sustainable development in the neoliberal age and via neoliberal
path. The following lines to come would be guided by this aim. In following section of this
article, we will see what neoliberal policies can do and most importantly have done to the
development and security of people.
Neoliberalism And The Reverie of Sustainable Development
In this section of article we will discuss the compatibility of sustainable development,
not of economic development, with the neoliberal economic policies. Doing so would
be of great relevance for The United Nations in 2015 has set 17 sustainable development
goals (SDGs) that are intended to be achieved by 2030.
Neoliberal economic system is regarded as the most efficient and effective system of
production and capital formation humanity has witnessed so far. Its role in unprecedented
material advancement is beyond any doubt; nevertheless it is not without controversy.
Every system, be it social, political or economic has its own auxiliary ideas, concepts,
processes and measures that are congruent with that particular system. As the system
changes, contents of those ideas and concepts too are accordingly changed. Similarly
neoliberalism is congruent with the growth–oriented development and is antithetical to
the new paradigm of sustainable development. As we mentioned above that neoliberalism

108 Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479

calls for privatization, liberalization, deregulation and public expenditure cut etc; in this
sense neoliberalism has huge implications for entire social formation. The much discussed
implications among them are following-
The most noxious by-product of the neoliberal policies pursued by the states is
concentration of wealth in few hands. Concentration of wealth, in fact, an inherent
characteristic of laissez-faire policies, has now become a global phenomenon. However,
this phenomenon is not entirely new one but its magnitude is. The growth¬-oriented
development has contributed to widen the gap both vertically and horizontally. A recent
study entitled “an economy for the 99%” published by the Oxfam International, exposes
that just eight men( it were 62 men according to the report of previous year) own the
same wealth as the 3.6.billion people who make up poorest half of the world (Oxfam
International, 2017). According to another study the richest one percent Indians own
58.4% of the national wealth in 2016. This figure was 36.8% in 2000 and 49% in 2014
(Global Wealth Databook, 2014, 2016). These data validate the global trend of ultra-
concentration of wealth and widening gap between rich and poor. The neoliberal thinkers
justify such differences regarding entitlements and possessions as “just” and “natural”.
Neoliberalism believes in “equality of opportunity” not in “equality of outcome”. Equality
of opportunity postulates that man’s fate should be determined by his choices not by
any arbitrary circumstances i.e. race, religion, sex and caste we are born into (Kymlicka,
2002, pp.58-59). In a society that does not put me on a disadvantage on the basis of these
arbitrary circumstances not of my own choosing then whatever success or result I will
achieve would be “just” because it has been “earned” by me and this is what I “deserve”.
Put simply, procedure of race should be just (procedural justice), then whatever someone
achieves would depend on his or her capacity, capability, knowledge and skill. This
neoliberal justification, that is known as procedural justice in political theory, regarding
inequality of entitlements and possessions is essential to support private ownership and
free market.
Inequality of opportunities and income and wide gulf between the haves and have
nots have been considered, until recently, as a menace to the developing and the least
developed countries only but some recent examples like the election of Donald Trump,
Brexit and the ascendance of the far-right and populism almost in every state of the
globe, have proved that this menace of unprecedented inequality is no longer confined
to the Third World countries. Resurgence of the far-right and populist politics confutes
the claim made by neoliberals like Hayek, Milton Friedman that the individual liberty is
compatible only with unfettered market society. Because if free market is to be compatible
with individual liberty, then the vanguard countries of neoliberalism like the USA,
the UK etc. would not have been confronted from above mentioned incidents. Ultra-
concentration of wealth in few hands breeds concentration of opportunities too in few
hands, for material wealth is the foremost determinant of opportunities that people enjoy.
Moreover, liberalization, privatization borne acute gulf between rich and poor causes
mutual distrust and hatred among and between different social groups that is detrimental
to social fabric (Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality, 2016, p.9.). This feeling
of hatred is often crystallized in forms of disillusionment with normal politics; growing
popularity of far-right, legitimacy deficit, political violence, separatism, secessionism,
insurgency etc. Put it in other words, if concentration of wealth, an inherent feature of

Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479 109

neoliberal economic policies, restricts the horizon of individual liberty then what is the
liberty that the neoliberals talk of.
Concentration of wealth is notorious for having benefited to what Amy Chua has
called “market-dominant minorities” (Amy Chua, 2003) that are often “outsiders”. The
existence of market-dominant minorities coupled with democratization often breeds
“hriday samrats” (kings of hearts) or “dhartiputras” (sons of soil) that are supposed to
be savior of the natives and their interests and this in turn ultimately provide fertile
land to the far-right and populism which the world is today witnessing of. Collision of
market-dominant minorities with growing political power of masses provides conducive
atmosphere for flourishing the ultra-nationalism, fundamentalism, ethnic violence and
cleansing.
Ecological impact of the growth-oriented concept of development on the tranquility
and stability of society has been substantiated by several studies. Obsession of the
states with higher rate of growth has polluted the environment to an alarming level.
Due to environmental degradation, climate change and unpredictable weather cycle, a
considerable part of population that rely for their livelihood solely on agricultural sector,
are left to migrate in search of new livelihood opportunity. This mass migration in turn
alters the demographic composition of concerned city or area that ultimately causes ethnic
hatred and violence. This mass migration phenomenon is instrumental in constructing a
discourse of “outsiders” versus “insiders” and it is this discourse that breeds demagogues,
the champions of identity politics.
Leave aside the discussion of the developed world for a while, countries of the
Third World have already been suffering with numerous challenges i.e. extreme poverty,
illiteracy, malnutrition, poor health services, social injustice, exploitation etc. and
because of these evils a substantial part of the population of these countries have remain
excluded from mainstream politics, economy and society. A sort of dilemma arises before
the countries of Third World regarding following neoliberal policies versus providing
basic needs to their populace. Now in such condition, neoliberal economic policies add
fuel to the fire. It is this juncture at which rhetoric of development and welfare of people
contradict each other.
From above analysis, it follows that the development that is achieved through
neoliberal economic policies, is itself a cause of several challenges and issues that call
into question the very utility of such development. This is the fundamental reason why
the academic as well as policy-makers around the world are calling for the new paradigm
of development, the paradigm of sustainable development. It is worthwhile to mention
here that the call for a new paradigm of development is being made within the same
institutional setting. As we discussed above that every system, be it social, political or
economic has its own auxiliary ideas, concepts, processes, measures that are congruent
with that particular system. Thus, only calling for new concept would never bring about
real change unless we have congruent institutions to that particular concept. We cannot
imagine of equal distribution of wealth in a laissez-faire economy; we cannot imagine of
political equality in feudalism. Similarly contemplating a new paradigm of development
instead of narrow growth-oriented development seems odd within a neoliberal state.
Analysis of ramifications of neoliberal policies based-development convincingly

110 Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479

exposes the vulnerability of development. Far from its sustainability, the current economic,
political and social systems are under continuous strains that are more vulnerable to
disruption. If current fruits of development are in question then how can we succeed in
sustaining the development from one generation to another? A Paradigm of development
that is not based on inclusion, equality and ecological preservation cannot assure of its
continuity and sustainability. We may now say without any hesitation that contemplating
sustainable development within the neoliberal setting is nothing but an illusion as
they are not mutually compatible. If we are to move towards sustainable development,
then both the concept of development and its required institutional setting must be
changed accordingly. We need to define sustainable development in a broad way that
may incorporate those several factors that are responsible for socio-economic-political
disruption. Innumerable socio-political and cultural evils in addition to just reckless
exploitation of natural resources need to be rooted out because poverty, deprivation,
underdevelopment, social injustice etc. are inextricably intertwined in a way that treating
these issues in isolation would prove to be in vain.
Need of A Human Centric, Inclusive, Euity-Based and Environment Friendly
Development
According to the Brundtland commission’s definition of sustainable development,
it seems, collapse and disruption of economic system or unsustainable development is
determined by the availability/ non-availability of natural resources. Seeing sustainable
development with this perspective is in line with the common understanding of sustainable
development wherein development is defined as a development without damaging
the environment. In other words, problem of sustainable development is a problem of
making a trade-off between the needs of development on the one hand and preservation
of environment on the other. The fundamental problem with such definitions is that these
definitions are still endeavor to define sustainable development in terms of economic
growth. The above discussed understanding of sustainable development is inherently
flawed due to at least two tenable reasons. Firstly, disruption of socio-economic-political
system and sustainability of developmental process are determined by several factors
other than by mere availability/non-availability of natural resources. Secondly, Sustainable
development is not just economic growth. To be qualified as sustainable development,
conditions of equity, ecological conservation, inclusion and being human-centric must
be added to the concept of development.
In the age of rapid modernization and technological advancement, almost every
state of the world has succeeded in establishing the required mechanisms for surplus
production. The capitalist mode of production has established itself, undoubtedly, as the
most efficient and effective system of production as Francis Fukuyama too averred in
his seminal thesis “the end of history”; history ended because humanity’s search for the
most perfect system has been achieved or realized. In fact, it would be reasonable to
say that production is no more a concern but the issue of distribution is. Efficiency of a
system to produce surplus does not portray full picture. Surplus production cannot be a
guarantee of human welfare and well-being. Moreover, prevailing system of distribution
is the most crucial determinant of human welfare. Several countries of the world are far
from performing well in indicators of human development, despite of having relatively
high level of per-capita income, whereas there are many countries that are performing

Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479 111

excellently in achieving relatively higher ranks in Human Development Index, that too
with relatively low level of per-capita income (Ansari, 2017, p.237).
Placing referent objects like GDP, GNP, FDI or economy at the center while defining
development does not necessarily bring prosperity and welfare to the people. On the
contrary, by-products of growth-oriented development like deprivation, marginalization,
inequality, environmental degradation have themselves begun to pose a grave threat to
humanity. This is the reason why these by-products of growth-oriented development are
now recognized as the constraints that limit the horizon of individual liberty and option.
Consequently, we need such a development that may eradicate these structural constraints
to the individual liberty and build up human capacity to overcome these constraints, so
that the scope of individual option may expand. Such development is known in academic
as human development that accords “the individual” as prime referent object rather
than economy, GDP, GNP etc. The paradigm of human development has now become
dominant paradigm of our age at least in academic, if not in policy making world.
Defining development in terms of human development necessitates taking into
consideration all those issues that pose or may pose threat to human liberty and well-
being. In this respect, proper provisions for inclusion and equity become inescapable.
The concept of equity is often assumed as an integral part of inclusive growth, but in
practice it is not so. Inclusive growth refers to such a development that ensures equal
representation and participation of all social groups, communities of concerned society.
It is worth mentioning here that aspect of equity is, definitely, taken into consideration
while we define inclusive growth but this equity is about equality of opportunity without
any arbitrary discrimination, to participate, get representation in development process.
Hence, it is very possible that a country achieves huge success in ensuring participation
and representation of all social groups/communities, but this achievement is silence
on the question of who got how much in this participation. Put simply, mere provision
of equal opportunity of participation cannot be synonym of equal or maximum
possible possession. Despite of having provided equal opportunities of participation
in developmental process, it is not very hard to find out an example wherein society is
highly stratified on the basis of unequal entitlements. It manifests well that in order to
realize sustainable development, just provision of inclusion would be inadequate, hence,
measures to ensure both inclusion and equity must be endeavored.
The last but not least, any development needs to be subservient to the conditions
of environment preservation and conservation. When we define development by putting
human agency, rather than economy, GDP, GNP, FDI etc., at the center, it automatically
necessitates a development to be environment-friendly. Because we saw how
environmental degradation puts peace and stability of a society and also the security of
human-being at great risk. As such, any effort that may potentially damage environment
in the name of development would no longer be tenable and justifiable. What is worth-
mentioning here is seeking environment preservation along with development is a two-
way effort. It could not only be realized through the government efforts, rather it requires
a great transformation in human life style too. Only a collaborative endeavor could bring
any success in this regard.

112 Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479

Will A Neoliberal State Work?
It would be correct to say that we are all breathing in the age of neoliberalism,
exactly the same age in which we have determined various sustainable development
goals (SDGs) to achieve. Actually it is a paradox, perhaps the greatest paradox of our
age. Almost every state of the globe regardless of its nature has now professed, willingly
or unwillingly, neoliberal credo. Some scholars nevertheless express some reservation in
linking neoliberalism with an authoritarian or even with a theocratic state. This is because
of their inability to comprehend the difference between contemporary neoliberalism
and classical liberalism; the champion of individual liberty. These reservations are very
superficial in nature. As we mentioned, that the neoliberal state is a state that promotes
liberalization, privatization, deregulation, disinvestment, social expenditure cut etc. in
order to provide market forces the maximum area of field therein they can play freely
without any direct intervention of the state. Once we accept this definition of the neoliberal
state then it is unclear what is it that may coerce an authoritarian or theocratic state to
abstain from adopting above mentioned neoliberal measures. In fact, a serious analysis
will show that neoliberal economic policies are pursued very effectively in a plutocracy,
kleptocracy or autocracy and this is the reason why among some of the first states of
the world where neoliberal economic policies were successfully implemented, were Chile
(1973) under the leadership of military dictator Augusto Pinochet and Argentina (1976)
under the leadership of military dictator Martinez de Hoz (Harvey, 2005). As such it is
not practical to say that an authoritarian or theocratic state cannot be a neoliberal state or
neoliberal tenets cannot be congruent with an authoritarian or theocratic state.
The requirements of inclusion and equity for the realization of sustainable
development themselves debunk the very feasibility of the neoliberal state because a
neoliberal state cannot meet above discussed requirements. In fact, these requirements
of sustainable development are fundamentally contrary to the tenets of neoliberalism.
We know that a neoliberal state resorts to liberalization, privatization, deregulation,
disinvestment, fiscal austerity and it confines itself to the formulation of rules and norms
for market forces. Withdrawal of the state from what were once public spheres, despite of
witnessing alarming level of inequality, poverty, illiteracy, structural violence etc. can only
aggravate the situation. In absence of the state, it is unclear which institution will deliver
the services that were once delivered by the state. If answer is the unfettered market, then
it has proven that at least market can never supplant the state. To realize the dream of
sustainable developmental goals, need of such state is inevitable that can help with its vast
web of affirmative programmes; such state that helps marginalized sections of the society
in coming out of the quagmire of underdevelopment and joining the mainstream. In the
last analysis, we may say that a neoliberal state will not work because its tenets are at odds
with the sustainable development.
CONCLUSION
“Retreat of the state” has become a hot potato since in this age of rapid globalization;
sphere of the state and sphere of the market are considered inversely proportional. This
contradiction lies at the heart of the philosophy of individualism that similarly regards
jurisdiction of the state and sphere of the individual liberty as inversely proportional.
Advocates of the free market oppose the presence of the state in what we call public spheres.

Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479 113

They aver that the state is neither equipped with adequate knowledge, professionalism
nor has efficiency to deliver services that a welfare state delivers. However, with all its
drawbacks, the state is the most representative organization unlike the other organizations
that represent a specific group. What is necessary is to make the state more representative
and accommodative and to stop it from becoming what Lenin said “an instrument in the
hands of bourgeoisie.” What inefficiencies are attached with the institution of state are not
incurable, hence talking of both “state-less” or “less-state” is misleading.
In the discourse of neoliberal growth-oriented development, development and
welfare/security of people prove to be contradictory and this fundamental contradiction
cannot be resolved within neoliberal framework. The inherent contradiction in neoliberal
ideology manifests in the fact that on the one hand neoliberal philosophy does not support
state intervention in the working of market, while on the other hand, when the so-called
self reliant, spontaneous market is about to collapse, it begins to plead bail-out packages
from the very state.
It is now well established fact that neoliberal economic policies prepare a fertile
land for deprivation, marginalization and underdevelopment of majority and it is this
deprivation, marginalization and underdevelopment that in turn pave the way for
extremism, terrorism, conflict and violence. And no development is possible, let alone
its sustainability, in violence-ridden and conflict-ridden society. The effect of the by-
products of neoliberal growth-oriented development like concentration of wealth, income
inequality, marginalization, environmental degradation, mass migration, tends to spill
over into the other state. These issues are, thus, of global nature for they never respect
territorial sovereignty. So, pursuing neoliberal economic policies recklessly generate
adverse consequences not only for any particular state, but for the whole world. However,
it is this characteristic of the by-products of neoliberal growth-oriented development
that paves the way for international cooperation. If we are of firm dedication to achieve
sustainable development, a robust state equipped with the vast web of affirmative actions
will have to be resorted else sustainable development would prove to be hot air.
REFERENCES
• Ansari, Mohammad Azaharuddin. 2017. “Relationship Between Development and Security:
From Macro to Micro.” In Cost and Results of Development in India: Challenges and Issues,
edited by Sandeep Giri & Anil K. Chaudhary, 229-240. Varanasi, India: Pilgrims Publishing
• Chua, Amy. 2003. World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred
and Global Instability. New York, USA: Random House Inc.
• Credit Suisse Research Institute. 2016. Global Wealth Databook 2016. http://publications.
credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=AD6F2B43-B17B-345E-
E20A1A254A3E24A5 (accessed 8 October, 2017).
• Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York, USA: Oxford University
Press.
• IMF. 2016. Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective. Washington,
D.C. USA: International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-
Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-
Global-Perspective-42986 (accessed 19 November, 2017).

114 Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479

 • Kymlicka, Will. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Oxford
University Press.
• Matthew R. A., Barnett J., Macdonald, B. & O’Brien K. L. 2010. Global Environmental Change
and Human Security. USA: The MIT Press.
• Oxfam International. 2017. An Economy For the 99%. Oxford: United Kingdom, 2017.
https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp-economy-for-99-
percent-160117-en.pdf. (accessed 20 November,2017).
• Sen, Amartya. 2000. Development as Freedom, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• United Nations. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development:
Our Common Future. New York, USA: United Nations. http://www.un-documents.net/our-
common-future.pdf (accessed 3 November, 2017).

Society and Politics Vol. 7 / No.2 / 2017, ISSN : 2248-9479 115

View publication stats