This analysis critically evaluates the applicability of Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine" in the context of the 1985 earthquake in Mexico, which has been posited as a potential case of disaster capitalism. Contrary to the model suggested by Klein, this document concludes that the evidence does not support the notion that the earthquake expedited neoliberal reforms in mexico. Instead, this paper argues that such reforms were already underway as part of a broader economic strategy independent of the disaster. This study highlights the importance of considering specific historical and socio-economic contexts when applying theoretical frameworks to understand economic policy responses to crises. By doing so, it invites a reevaluation of the generalizability of the shock doctrine and suggests a more nuanced interpretation of the interplay between political economy and natural disasters. The analysis concludes with a call for further research into the distinct dynamics of the Mexican experience and potential oversights in Klein's framework, contributing to a deeper and more critical understanding of disaster capitalism.
The Seismic Shock Doctrine? A Critical Challenge To Naomi Kleins’ ’Disaster Capitalism’
Abstract:
This analysis critically evaluates the applicability of Naomi Klein’s "shock doctrine" in the context of the 1985 earthquake in Mexico, which has been posited as a potential case of disaster capitalism. Contrary to the model suggested by Klein, this document concludes that the evidence does not support the notion that the earthquake expedited neoliberal reforms in mexico. Instead, this paper argues that such reforms were already underway as part of a broader economic strategy independent of the disaster. This study highlights the importance of considering specific historical and socio-economic contexts when applying theoretical frameworks to understand economic policy responses to crises. By doing so, it invites a reevaluation of the generalizability of the shock doctrine and suggests a more nuanced interpretation of the interplay between political economy and natural disasters. The analysis concludes with a call for further research into the distinct dynamics of the Mexican experience and potential oversights in Klein’s framework, contributing to a deeper and more critical understanding of disaster capitalism.
Introduction
This document engages with Naomi Klein’s concept of the "shock doctrine"—a dominant framework for understanding the ascendancy of neoliberalism in the 1980s, especially as it proliferated across Latin America, externally undermining the region’s prior experiments with protectionistImport Substitution Industrialization1(ISI) economic strategies. Following, this document endeavours to extend the application of this theory to the 1985 earthquake in Mexico, a pivotal natural disaster in Latin America during the so-calledneoliberal revolution2. Building on Klein’s thesis—that neoliberal policies are frequently enacted in states following crises and disasters, a process she labels "disaster capitalism,"3which involves exploiting both manufactured and natural calamities by policymakers and business entities to advance controversial and frequently detrimental reforms in deregulation, privatisation, and austerity—this document aims to explore the extent to which the aforementioned earthquake was utilised as an instance of the shock doctrine, if at all.
Following, this document ultimately refutes Klein’s assertion by demonstrating that there is no significant evidence to indicate that the 1985 Mexican earthquake was exploited to accelerate neoliberal agendas. Despite Mexico undergoing neoliberal reforms at that time, the evidence suggests that these reforms were not accelerated—indeed, they may have been paradoxically de- celerated—as a direct consequence of the earthquake. In the aftermath of the disaster, the Mexican federal government refused all foreign aid for reconstruction and did not seek immediate loans from the World Bank or the IMF. This decision effectively avoided furtherstructural adjustment policies (SAPs)4tied to such financial assistance. Further, this stance is in stark contrast to Indonesia’s response to its 2004 Tsunami5rebuilding efforts, which have been criticised for disproportionately benefiting domestic elites and foreign investors under the guise of an opportunity to "build back better."6At the same time, the post-disaster strengthening of building codes7in Mexico suggests a temporary resurgence of state involvement, rather than an intensified drive towards austerity as Kleins’ thesis would suggest. Furthermore, while Mexico did secure a substantial $10.7 billion USDstructural adjustmentloan from the World Bank in 19878—two years after the earth- quake—this occurred significantly after the earthquake, making it improbable that the disaster’s impact rendered the public more amenable to such financial measures. Lastly, this document contends that Klein’s framework does not adequately explain the continued election of neoliberal leaders in Mexico for nearly three decades post-earthquake despite relatively few crises or ‘shocks’ stimulating the public’s complicity.9
In sum, this document concludes that although Klein’s argument is persuasive and may elucidate the ascendancy of neoliberalism in certain Latin American contexts, particularly in Chile as Klein herself extensively investigates, extending her thesis to interpret the 1985 Mexican earthquake as a catalyst for neoliberalism—this document concludes—is fundamentally incorrect. Indeed, it appears that the earthquake had minimal, if any, influence on accelerating the neoliberal agenda in Mexico.
The Neoliberal Revolution: a ’Synthesis’ of Overaccumulation
The neoliberal transformation of the 1980s constituted a profound global realignment. Within the central economies—regarded throughout this document as theimperial core10—there was a sustained rise inGross Domestic Product (GDP)11from the post-war period up to the early 1970s.12However, the economic downturn of 1974 significantly halted this growth trajec- tory.13In these central economies, the strategy of reducing domestic wages to decrease labour costs—with the objective of enhancing the rate of manufacturing profit—unintentionally led to a stagnation in demand.14This policy, by yielding to capital’s imperative for "infinite growth,"15paradoxically resulted in a decrease in domestic purchasing power within these central economies. The consequence was vast swathes ofoveraccumulated capital16within the imperial core, languishing and estranged from the economy to the extent that a diminution of the population’s purchasing power in an effort to increase theirrate of exploitation17(ROE) had effectively quenched all demand.18This scenario represented economic stagnation, precipitated by one of the many internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. Such a contradiction is one that Marxian economists have consistently emphasised as critically important to understand and address.19
Following, within this framework of Marxian economic analysis, capital circulation is examined through the prism of dialectical materialism, which is defined by the dynamic interplay between conflicting forces—namely, the thesis and its antithesis. Within this framework, capital’s attempt to increase profit margins by suppressing wages (the thesis) paradoxically leads to a reduction in the purchasing power of its consumer base (the antithesis).20According to the principles of dialectical materialism, such a contradiction
(like any other within the capitalist mode of production) seemingly reaches a provisional resolution—or ’synthesis’, not by addressing the root issue but by delaying its effects, either temporally or spatially.21Marx interprets the bourgeoisie’s capacity to postpone the systemic crises of capitalism, either through time or across geographies, thereby ensuring its survival, as indicative of this class’s "revolutionary element."22
Reflecting on the economic downturn of 1974 in the western world, this crisis highlighted a significant contradiction characterised by an overaccumulation of capital in the imperial core. Instead of implementing policies that would empower labour to secure higher wages, thereby increasing domestic purchasing power and stimulating expenditure, the reaction—or ’synthesis’—to this recession ushered in ’the neoliberal revolution’.23This pivotal change did not rectify the fundamental disparity by strengthening labour’s stance. Rather, it adopted a neoliberal agenda that emphasised deregulation, privatisation, and minimising state involvement in the economy.24
Within the imperial core, the approach to addressing the contradiction, especially regardingfixed capital25that could not be relocated geographically,26was through a ’temporal fix’—effectively, delaying the issue or "kicking the can down the road."27This method entailed lowering interest rates, thus permitting consumers to accumulate more debt than they could realistically manage.28The intent behind this strategy was to boost expenditure by stimulating consumer credit, yet it inevitably led to the rise of the western world’s modern debt-economy as a novel contradiction.29This development aligns with the thesis-antithesis framework of dialectical materialism, which asserts that "capitalism never resolves its crises; it merely displaces them,"30either spatially and/or temporally. Additionally, the deregulation and growth of financial activities, notably advocated by Reaganomics in the United States (U.S.), along with the widespread austerity measures introduced by Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (CCEA), in response to the 1974 economic downturn,31and the rise of Thatcherism in the United Kingdom (U.K.)32, facilitated the unrestrained flow ofliquid capital.33This movement, as noted byaccelerationists,34has exacerbated the inherent contradictions within the capitalist mode of production.35
Following this, capital’s self-preservation mechanism beyond the geographical limits of the imperial core involved expanding both the temporal and spatial aspects of its domestic overaccumulation crisis. This was achieved by diverting surplus capital towards the global periphery, effectively postponing these crises both across time and space, a strategy that Marxian geographer David Harvey describes as a “spatio-temporal fix"36. This strategy marked the beginning of what Marxian theorists have termed ’new imperialism’, a period defined by capital capitalising on—or ’synthesising’—the existing global development disparities which themselves had developed from the imperial core’s historical engagements with formal colonialism spanning from the 16th to the 19th centuries.37
New Imperialism and Neocolonialism in Latin America
In the global south, particularly in Latin America, the U.S., as the predominant influence behind theBretton Woods Institutions38(BWIs)—especially the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—viewed the region as an essential component of its hegemonic sphere of influence.39This perspective reinforced the U.S.’s historical paternalistic stance towards Latin America, originally established through theMonroe Doctrine40under President James Monroe.41As a result, Latin American nations became prime targets for the redirection of the U.S.’s overaccumulated capital,42falling into debt traps laid by these BWIs. These traps exploited the region’s need for financial assistance in the wake of postcolonial independence movements. Consequently,Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs)were widely applied across the continent, mandating the extensive privatisation and financializa- tion of assets in the region—assets that were either previously nationalised or whollyres extra commercium43, the latter being crucial for Indigenous resource tenure before their enforced commodification.44These interventions significantly hindered the nascent attempts of these countries to attain economic independence and to“de-link"45from their exploitative ties with the imperial core, despite the advocacy for ‘Import Substitution Industrialization’ (ISI) by the regions’ world-systems economists.46
Subsequently, theWashington Consensusunderscored this dynamic through the introduction of a set of ten liberalising reforms, purportedly designed to address the financial difficulties encountered by developing nations in the region.47Nevertheless, it has increasingly been recognized that these reforms were primarily aimed at making the economies of these developing countries more amenable to absorbing the overaccumulated capital from the imperial core, rather than sincerely facilitating their development.48In Latin America, in particular, when nations resisted the global push towards pri- vatisation—mainly driven by the U.S.—they faced the transient but potent economic coercion ofneocolonialism49, often manifesting as sanctions and coercive debt traps.50
Indeed, reflecting on the Marxian adage that under capitalism "all that is solid melts into air,"51indicating that capital disguises its inherent contradictions by turning them into "irrational and soulless abstractions,"52neocolonialism exemplifies this principle. It presents a façade of a "peculiar kind of abstract freedom"53that, despite continuing the exploitative dependency relationships between the global periphery and the imperial core—akin to those seen in formal colonialism—accomplishes this through a more abstract form of economic coercion54subscribing to Frédéric Lordon’s assertion that “to dominate without bearing the stain of evil...is perhaps the ultimate fantasy of the dominant."55
Notwithstanding, when the global periphery resists these neocolonial pressures through what Karl Polanyi terms a “double movement,"56the thin veneer of abstraction is stripped away. This resistance uncovers the underlying aggressive and militaristic nature that mirrors the overtly violent methods of control found in formal colonialism. This situation echoes another maxim commonly attributed to Vladimir Lenin: "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds,"57implying that by merely ’scratching’—or piercing through the superficial layer or illusion of abstraction—one can reveal the inherent fascistic and colonial inclinations within liberalism, or specifically, within the framework of neoliberalism.
To elaborate, when we view the nationalisation of land by the democratically elected Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz—which challenged the prior expropriations by the U.S. transnational corporation (TNC) United Fruit Company—as a "double movement"58resisting US-driven neoliberal agendas, the harsh reality of "capital-preserving violence"59becomes apparent. This resistance was met with the 1954 CIA-backed coup against Arbenz’s administration, serving as a stark example of punitive action.60Similarly, the U.S. support for the assassination of President Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, following his nationalisation of key sectors, led to the emergence of General
Augusto Pinochet’s regime.61Pinochet’s government, while unmistakably neofascist, was paradoxically celebrated as the inaugural "laboratory test"62of neoliberalism. This historical sequence contradicts neoliberal economist Arthur Harberger’s claim that "you cannot have a repressive government. ..within a genuinely free market system,"63by demonstrating how neoliberal policies can indeed coexist with, and even necessitate, repressive governance to safeguard capital interests as per Lenin’s maxim.64
Crisis Theory and Manufacturing Consent
Naomi Klein posits that the aggressive pursuit of regime changes in the global south by entities from the imperial core, in reaction to the resistance of peripheral states against the forced commodification, privatisation, and finan- cialization of their natural resources, transcends simple suppression of resistance to neoliberal policies. Indeed, beyond merely stifling anti-neoliberal opposition, she asserts that such actions also serve as a form of economic shock therapy that aligns with neoliberal objectives ofaccumulation by disposses- sion,65showcasing capital’s capacity to leverage its own crises for gain.66She notes prior scholars who argue that acts of aggression by the imperial core, notably the U.S. invasion of Iraq, were—at least in part—intended to decrease the value of foreign assets. This orchestrated devaluation makes it easier for transnational corporations (TNCs) from the imperial core to acquire these assets at lower prices, setting the groundwork for their potential revaluation in the aftermath of the ’shock’ inflicted by such invasions.67Following, Klein has termed this phenomenon ’the shock doctrine’, illustrating how capital seizes upon political crises—often precipitated by U.S.- supported regime changes—to implement radical neoliberal reforms that would be impractical under stable conditions. Klein effectively unpacks this concept by pointing to the actions ofMilton Friedman’s68protégés, the U.S.-educatedChicago Boys,69who rapidly introduced neoliberal policies in Chile, capitalising on the turmoil following the CIA-backed coup against the Allende administration. This strategy exemplifies the broader tactic of exploiting crises to further neoliberal agendas, underscoring the complex dynamics of economic exploitation and political power in the global landscape.70Building on Naomi Klein’s "shock doctrine"—her argument that neoliberal policy makers capitalise on crises to implement controversial policies while the public is distracted by disasters or social turmoil—it is plausible to suggest that Mexico’s neoliberal shift, occurring during the so-called ’neoliberal revolution’, was ostensibly a strategy to address the ’imperial core’s, particularly the U.S.’, issue of overaccumulated capital. Additionally, considering that the 1985 Mexico earthquake, one of the most consequential natural disasters in modern Latin American history,71coinciding with this period, it is reasonable to infer, in line with Klein’s theory of ’disaster capitalism’, that this earthquake was opportunistically used by policymakers and corporate interests to push through contentious reforms in deregulation, privatisation, and austerity, often to the detriment of the public good.
In exploring this plausibility, this document ironically levies a notion posited by Milton Friedman himself. That is, his articulation that "only a crisis - actual or perceived [and intentional or coincidental] - produces real change"72and that “when that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas lying around,"73where he specifically refers to neoliberal ideologies as said “ideas lying around"74. Accordingly, this documents’ exploration of the potential transferability of Kleins’ ‘shock doctrine’ onto the 1985 Mexican earthquake underscores that, similar to how the carbon crisis has been commercialised through market-based solutions like cap-and-trade,75the logics of capital—irrespective of their involvement in triggering natural disasters, whether intentional or not, causal or correlative—often systematically seize the ensuing chaos for their benefit—that, “crises are moments of potential opportunity and innovation for capitalist enterprise."76
To elucidate my previous statement—specifically, my directive to overlook whether the earthquake was "causal or correlative"—I would like to clarify that this proposed analysis, which examines the applicability of Klein’s ’shock doctrine’ to this specific incident, does not imply that the earthquake was "rationally"77or conspiratorially instigated by capitalist entities as a mechanism of self-preservation, in a manner akin to Klein’s narrative of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) willful destabilisation of Allende’s Chile to facilitate the acceptance of neoliberal reforms among the ‘shocked’ Chilean populace.78Nevertheless, it should be noted that while earthquakes and other natural disasters primarily obey natural rather than economic laws, the impact of capitalist industrialization in amplifying themetabolic rift79and contributing to the advancement of theAnthropocene80—thereby exacerbating the ecological crisis that define our time81—cannot be overstated.
Particularly noteworthy—and specific to the 1985 earthquake—is the assertion that, although themode of production82may have had little to no ‘rational’ effect on triggering the earthquake, a collective known as ‘the Group of 100,’ comprising Mexican intellectuals, artists, and scientists, highlighted how the amplification of infrastructural damage—evident five days following the seismic event—had been exacerbated by the Mexican government’s neoliberal reforms.83They pointed out that these policies resulted in inferior infrastructure and relaxed building regulations. Additionally, they highlighted how austerity measures had significantly decreased the ratio of doctors to civilians in Mexico City, critically undermining the city’s ability to adequately respond to such disasters.84
Given this context, following these two plausible premises: (1) that the earthquake’s ‘shocks’—both seismic and psychological—were leveraged to promote neoliberal policies as per Kleins’ framework, and (2) that the severity of the earthquake’s impact was exacerbated by Mexico’s ongoing engagement with neoliberalism and structural adjustments that relaxed building regulations and weakened medical infrastructure;ifboth premises are true, this would corroborate Klein’s argument that the capitalist mode of production (in this case, as it pertains to the 1985 Mexican earthquake) perpetuates itself through a cycle where it both generates crises and sustains itself by capitalising on these crises (Figure 1.).85
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 1. A prospective way in which Klein’s argument that the capitalist mode of production perpetuates itself through a cycle where it both generates crises and sustains itself by capitalising on these crises IF both premise(s) one (1) and two (2) are correct.
Notwithstanding, despite initial plausibility, a thorough review of the literature indicates that the first assertion—namely, that the earthquake was exploited to accelerate neoliberal reforms—does not hold upon closer examination. Therefore, this document concludes that, without holistically dismissing Klein’s theory on the self-perpetuating nature of capitalist crises, the theory seems unapplicable to the 1985 Mexican earthquake.
Indeed, this analysis challenges the potential applicability of Naomi Klein’s ’shock doctrine’ to conceptualise the earthquake as a crucial ’shock’ or “boogeyman"86that could facilitate the pursuit of otherwise unattainable neoliberal reforms. The document concludes differently, suggesting that the failure to substantiate this theory could stem from normative oversights or analytical reductionism inherent in Klein’s approach—whether due to its oversimplification or heavy reliance on anecdotal evidence.87Alternatively, it may be that Mexico constitutes a distinctive ’outlier’ from Kleins’ model. Regardless, this document concludes, albeit reluctantly, that absent additional analysis, there is no evidence to substantiate the assertion that the earthquake facilitated an acceleration of neoliberal policy adoption in the region.
The Seismic And Psychological Shock Doctrine(s)?
On September 19, 1985, during the peak of the ’neoliberal revolution,’ a devastating earthquake with an estimated moment magnitude of 8.0 struck off the coast of Michoacan, Mexico, resulting in up to 30,000 fatalities.88This event is crucial to this analysis due to its alleged potential exploitation by both Mexican political and economic elites and by foreign investors, particularly those from the U.S., situated within the imperial core. Continuing from the seismic tragedy, a primary concern for Washington in the earthquake’s aftermath was Mexico’s substantial foreign debt,89which totaled $96 billion, largely owed to the World Bank and the IMF.90Mexico had previously defaulted on its payments to the IMF in August 1982, prompting the adoption of SAPs.91This financial strain was further compounded shortly before the earthquake by Mexico’s acceptance of an additional SAP loan from the World Bank.92The combined impact of the implementation of SAPs, IMF-mandated devaluations of the peso, previous oil price shocks, and the catastrophic earthquake had by this time nearly completely depleted the Mexican federal reserve.93
Notwithstanding, despite significant challenges in rebuilding efforts, the Mexican federal government declined all forms of aid, irrespective of any conditions that might have been attached.94This refusal could have been influenced by several factors: (1) a commitment to maintaining national sovereignty, which would challenge Klein’s framework by indicating a prioritisation of economic independence over ceding sovereignty for external support; and/or (2) a reduced capacity to manage external assistance due to substantial reductions in operational capabilities, a consequence of existing SAPs. Notably, this second potential reason, although stemming from current austerity measures and structural adjustments, did not accelerate the advancement of already-implemented neoliberal reforms, and thus, cannot be said to be explained by Kleins’ framework
Despite the reasons for the Mexican government’s refusal of aid, this decision, coupled with the depletion of the federal reserve following Mexico’s prior loan default, sparked speculation that Mexico might seek additional loans from BWIs in the aftermath of the disaster,95mirroring Indonesia’s response to the 2004 Tsunami.96However, Mexico did not adopt this strategy.Kleinists97typically rightly criticise such strategies, not for Mexico’s non-adoption, but for the BWIs’ exploitation of similar situations, as seen in Indonesia, where the strategy served primarily to benefit domestic elites and foreign capital98under the pretence of an opportunity to "build back better."99Yet, it appears that the scenario of the BWIs’ ’preying’ on Mexico’s vulnerability, similar to what occurred later in Indonesia, was not the case as no post-earthquake loans had been immediately issued.
Nevertheless, to entertain the possibility, it remains unclear whether Mexico sought additional loans post-earthquake and was subsequently denied. Such a scenario admittedly could be perceived as the World Bank and IMF exploiting Mexico’s vulnerability to deepen neoliberal influence in the region, by making future loans contingent on Mexico’s strict adherence to existing SAPs. If this were true, it would align with Klein’s assertion that neoliberal institutions capitalise on natural disasters to further their agendas through conditional loans, consistent with the broader concept of the ’shock doctrine.’ However, substantial evidence suggests the opposite is true. Given Mexico’s hesitation to accept aid related to the earthquake100and the known readiness of both the IMF and World Bank to increase states’ indebtedness following crises—as exemplified by the situation in Indonesia—it seems more probable that the decision to forego these loans was made by the Mexican government itself, prioritising economic sovereignty over accepting rebuilding support conditioned on further SAPs. Furthermore, the absence of any formal reports from the World Bank or IMF indicating that Mexico sought post-earthquake assistance bolsters this conclusion. Indeed, if the absence of post-earthquake loans between the BWIs and Mexico was indeed due to Mexico’s own volition, this choice would seemingly indicate a departure from Klein’s model suggesting that the ’shock doctrine’ may not be applicable or relevant in this context.
Further, contrary to Klein’s thesis, the earthquake may have paradoxically resulted in a temporary deceleration of Mexico’s neoliberal progression. This shift is evident in the federal government’s implementation of the Reglamento de Construcciones para el Distrito Federal (Building Regulations for the Federal District), a regulation designed to enhance building resilience against seismic activity in Mexico City. This action marked a reversal from the previous liberalisation of building codes that had aggravated the crisis. Additionally, without additional loans, nor seeking aid, the government—with its already depleted federal reserve—managed to have temporarily halted its trend of reducing social services, in line with its structural adjustment commitments, by establishing the Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED).101This agency committed itself to researching and enacting policies to prevent and mitigate the impacts of natural disasters in Mexico, demonstrating a proactive approach to crisis prevention. This stance is noteworthy, particularly given the potential for ’shock’ doctrines that could advance neoliberalism, as suggested by Klein’s thesis. Moreover, this investment indicates a Keynesian-like readiness to utilise Mexico’s diminished federal reserves to stimulate the economy during periods of recession or crisis.102This approach starkly contrasts with Klein’s assertion that such a disaster would constrict spending in accordance with the neoliberal trajectory.
Acceleration, Context and Concessions
It is essential to recognize that despite following the earthquake in 1985, that although the Mexican government did not pursue aid or loans for reconstruction from BWIs or other international lenders, there was indeed a notable increase inforeign direct investment103(FDI) into Mexico, with 62% originating from the U.S..104This influx aligns with the neoliberal principles that Naomi Klein describes, potentially leveraging the crisis to attract overaccumulated capital from the imperial core seeking investment opportunities. However, it is also crucial to distinguish that this transfer of capital was not a result of coercive economic policies such as structural adjustments or austerity measures imposed by the BWIs on Mexico. Moreover, the extent to which this investment surge directly targeted the earthquake’s reconstruction needs or capitalised on undervalued Mexican assets that had been destroyed by the earthquake remains ambiguous. Importantly, there is no evidence suggesting an acceleration of Mexico’s neoliberal policies as a direct consequence of the earthquake, which would imply a strategic and borderline conspiratorial manipulation of the disaster for neoliberal ends. This observation suggests that Klein’s ’Shock Doctrine’, which posits that crises are systematically exploited to enforce radical economic policies, may not be fully applicable in the context of Mexico’s 1985 earthquake.
Thus, while recognizing the substantial negative effects of neoliberal policies enforced by BWIs on Mexico across nearly five decades,105It is crucial to delineate a nuanced stance: according to a thorough review of the existing literature, the process of neoliberalization did not demonstrably intensify during the 1985 earthquake. Indeed, the significant escalations of neoliberal policies, including Mexico’s initial adoption of SAPs, transpired either before or significantly after the seismic event.
Indeed, in discussions of post-earthquake neoliberal accelerationism, it is crucial to emphasise the significant delay in Mexico’s neoliberal commitments following the disaster. Notably, it took a full year after the earthquake before there was an acceleration of neoliberal reforms. This extended period contrasts sharply with the immediate aftermath, when financial aid and loans would have been most crucial for effective rebuilding. The eventual neoliberal commitments by Mexico, such as joining the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to gradually reduce tariffs over three years,106and implementing the Pacto de Solidaridad Económica (Economic Solidarity Pact)—which included a series of reforms aimed at economic stabilisation, inflation control, and growth through further liberalisation, price controls, and wage restrictions—indicate a notable slowdown in the adoption of neoliberal policies immediately after the disaster.107This timeline challenges the rapid-response model typically suggested by Naomi Klein, where crises are immediately used to expedite neoliberal policies. Instead, the delay suggests a more cautious, possibly strategic approach to neoliberal reforms in the immediate wake of the earthquake’s impacts.
Therefore, while Klein’s broader analytical framework remains pertinent in addressing the systemic enforcement of neoliberal policies, the specific case of the 1985 earthquake in Mexico does not align precisely with the patterns she outlines. This reluctance to wholly endorse Klein’s ’Shock Doctrine’ in this instance highlights the complexity of attributing universal policy accelerations directly to crises without taking into account the wider temporal and local political contexts.
Indeed, while it is true—as per dialectical materialism, and as this document concurs—that the dynamics of capitaloftenmanifest in predictably dialectical ways. That is, that they traverse both spatial and temporal dimensions to synthesise their internal contradictions.108It should be noted that a genuinely dialectically materialist analysis, must resist assimilation into liberal phenomenological frameworks. Specifically, this analysis must avoid the liberal tendencies towards (1) universalism and (2)individual re- ductionism.109Regarding the first claim—that dialectical materialism cannot adopt universalist frameworks—note that dialectical materialism examines the logics of capital through various inherent tendencies, which in turn, are met with counter tendencies. This interaction results in non-universal and uneven global development,110and introduces a dimension of unpredictability in how capital manoeuvres to ensure its self-preservation.111As Marx noted alongside histendency of the rate of profit to fall,112he subsequently identified a number of counter-tendencies or counteracting fac- tors—such as technological innovation, increased labour intensity, and wage reduction—similarly, although Klein’s model illustrates a general tendency for capital to exploit crises, her thesis simultaneously necessitates acknowledging the various counter-tendencies driven by localised contexts that may produce atypical outcomes, as possibly exemplified by the aftermath of the 1985 earthquake in Mexico having not conformed to her thesis.
Furthermore, the assertion that dialectical materialism must not succumb to liberal phenomenologies is to state that the logics of capital cannot be simplified to individual reductionism. For example, whereas liberal thought might attribute global inequalities to willful greed, a Marxist perspective directs our attention to the underlying material structures that foster and encourage accumulation.113Following, Klein positions her shock doctrine within an almost individualistic, willful, and conspiratorial framework—suggesting that such outcomes are the result of detrimental policy choices willfully driven by figures such as Milton Friedman and Arthur Harberger, which could have been averted.114Indeed, she largely ignores, as Ross Carter states, "the reality of the lives of passive desperation, the mental trauma, anguish, and grief that humanity, as a whole, currently lives with."115This critique leads Carter to describe Klein’s position as an inadvertently "blind commitment to democracy and liberalism,"116where neoliberalism is characterised by a willfully malignant and borderline conspiratorial predatory capacity, rather than an ongoing, perpetual ’shock doctrine’ dictated by the capitalist mode of production, where "we are traumatised in the womb...traumatised in birth...born into generational trauma" whereby—contrary to Kleins’ implied thesis—no contemporary reforms, nor any techno-fixes or reforms will unearth these logics.
Notwithstanding, this document’s analysis acknowledges that, contrary to Carter’s assertion, it does not categorise Klein as a liberal. Nevertheless, in line with Carter, it suggests that Mexico’s divergence from Klein’s ‘shock doctrine’ critiques her failure to fully account for the broader material forces shaped by capital’s logics. This highlights the need for a rigorous materialist analysis that moves beyond individualistic interpretations of global economic phenomena. It acknowledges that Klein’s positionality as a public intellectual may have influenced her to frame her arguments in a way that is more digestible to a general audience, potentially at the expense of a deeper materialist critique. Still, regardless of whether this simplification is strategic or indicative of an analytical shortfall, Mexico’s neoliberal experimentation, notably unaltered by the 1985 earthquake, demands a comprehensive, materialist examination of capitalist dynamics that extends beyond Klein’s proposed framework.
In sum, the analysis presented in this document thoroughly examines the applicability of Naomi Klein’s “shock doctrine" to the 1985 earthquake in Mexico and finds it wanting in this particular instance. The evidence suggests that the seismic event did not serve as a catalyst for the acceleration of neoliberal policies; rather, these policies were part of a broader, pre-existing economic agenda that persisted irrespective of the disaster. This finding underscores the critical importance of contextual nuances in the application of theoretical frameworks to historical events and invites further scholarly scrutiny and nuanced debate on the interactions between political economy and natural disasters. By challenging the generalised applicability of Klein’s model, this analysis not only refines our understanding of disaster capitalism but also enhances our comprehension of the complex socio-economic dynamics that define neoliberal governance in the face of crises. Furthermore, this conclusion calls for additional inquiry into whether the Mexican case represents an outlier or if it signals a broader normative oversight within Klein’s framework or its common interpretations. Specifically, it prompts a reevaluation of the often universal and almost conspiratorially liberal phenomenological interpretations of the shock doctrine, encouraging a more critically nuanced and contextually aware application of its principles.
[...]
1Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) is an economic policy strategy aimed at reducing foreign dependency by encouraging domestic production of goods that would otherwise be imported.
2The neoliberal revolution refers to a political and economic movement that started in the late 20th century, advocating for reduced government intervention in the economy, increased privatisation, deregulation, and free-market capitalism to promote economic growth and efficiency.
3Klein, Naomi. The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Macmillan, 2007. 112.
4Structural adjustment policies refer to economic measures imposed by international financial institutions on developing countries, typically involving austerity measures, privatisation, and deregulation, aimed at restructuring their economies to align with neoliberal principles.
5Fan, Lilianne. "Disaster as opportunity." Building back better in Aceh, Myanmar and Haiti (2013).
6"United Nations Economic and Social Council. ’Tsunami Special Envoy Bill Clinton Tells Ecosoc Most Challenging Days Lay Ahead in Recovery, Disaster Prevention, Applying Lessons Learned.’ July 14, 2005. https://press.un.org/en/2005/ecosoc6166.doc.htm."
7Esteva, L. "The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985—Consequences, lessons, and impact on research and practice." Earthquake Spectra 4, no. 3 (1988): 413-426.
8Fan, Lilianne. "Disaster as opportunity." Building back better in Aceh, Myanmar and Haiti (2013).
9Lustig, Nora Claudia. "The Unhappy End, Poverty and Inequality." In Mexico: The Remaking of an Economy, 213-221. Brookings Institution Press, 2000.
10The imperial core refers to the central, dominant regions within a historically imperialist system characterised by economic and political control over colonies or peripheral territories.
11Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total monetary value of all goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period, serving as a broad measure of overall economic activity.
12Warnock, John W. "The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed." In The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed, 1-11. 1995.
13Warnock, John W. "The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed." In The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed, 1-11. 1995.
14Ibid.
15Klein, Naomi. This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon and Schuster, 2015. 58.
16Overaccumulated capital refers to the excessive accumulation of wealth or assets that exceeds the productive needs or investment opportunities within an economy.
17The rate of exploitation is a measure used in Marxist economics to quantify the ratio of surplus value extracted from labour relative to the wages paid to workers.
18Lucarelli, Bill, and Bill Lucarelli. "Overaccumulation and Crisis." Monopoly Capitalism in Crisis (2004): 51-67.
19Marx, Karl. Capital: volume one. Courier Dover Publications, 2019.
20"Dialego. ’Philosophy and Class Struggle.’ In What Is Dialectical Materialism?’, 1975.
21Jessop, Bob. "Spatial fixes, temporal fixes and spatio-temporal fixes." David Harvey: A critical reader (2006): 142-166.
22Marx, Karl. "Bourgeois and Proletarians 1." In Industrial Work and Life, pp. 395-404. Routledge, 2020.
23Warnock, John W. "The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed." In The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed, 1. 1995.
24Warnock, John W. "The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed." In The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed, 1-11. 1995.
25In this sense, fixed capital refers to the physical assets, like machinery, tools, and factories, that are used in the production process to generate surplus value but do not themselves undergo transformation into commodities and cannot be geographically/spatially displaced.
26Sheppard, Eric. "The spatiality of the limits to capital." Antipode 36, no. 3 (2004): 470-479.
27Cutrone, Chris. "The end of the Gilded Age: Discontents of the Second Industrial Revolution today." The Platypus Review. 102.
28Saad-Filho, Alfredo. "Monetary policy and neoliberalism." In Value and Crisis: Essays on Labour, Money and Contemporary Capitalism, pp. 269-288. Brill, 2019.
29Caffentzis, C. George. "Everyday life in the shadow of the debt economy." In Psychology and the conduct of everyday life, pp. 176-191. Routledge, 2015.
30Castree, Noel, and Derek Gregory, eds. A Critical Reader: David Harvey. Blackwell, 2006, 236.
31Watkins, Thayer. "The 1974-1975 Recession in the U.S." San José State University, Economics Department. Accessed April 2nd, 2024. https://sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/rec1975.htm.
32George, Susan. "A short history of neoliberalism." Nueva York: Global Policy Forum, 1999.
33In this context, "liquid capital" does not align with the bourgeois economic dichotomy between liquid and fixed capital, where the former is considered intangible. Instead, it denotes capital that is not bound to any specific geographical location, and its mobility is solely constrained by monetary policy.
34In this context, accelerationism pertains to those Marxians who subscribe to, but not necessarily advocate for, the acceleration of Marx’s teleology. This concept suggests that the capitalist mode of production will eventually fail to manage its inherent contradictions and, as a result, will self-implode.
35Pavôn-Cuéllar, David. "The Subject Lagging Behind the Acceleration of Neoliberal Capitalist Discourse." International Journal of Theoretical Psychologies 1, no. 2 (2021): 123-134.
36Jessop, Bob. "Spatial fixes, temporal fixes and spatio-temporal fixes." David Harvey: A critical reader (2006): 142-166.
37Anghie, Antony. "The evolution of international law: colonial and postcolonial realities." Third World Quarterly 27, no. 5 (2006): 739-753.
38The Bretton Woods Institutions refer to the World Bank and the IMF, established in 1944 to manage international monetary policy and presumably to foster global economic stability and growth.
39Rajagopal, Balakrishnan. International law from below: Development, social movements and third world resistance. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
40The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. policy opposing European colonialism in the Americas, declared in 1823.
41Vastano, Alexander. "The Hypocrisy of the Monroe Doctrine: An Insight into Nineteenth Century American Imperialism." The General: Brock University Undergraduate Journal of History 8 (2023): 209-220.
42Warnock, John W. "The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed." In The other Mexico: the North American triangle completed, 1-11. 1995.
43Res extra commercium refers to a legal concept indicating things that are outside of commerce.
44Teubal, Miguel. "Peasant struggles for land and agrarian reform in Latin America." In Peasants and Globalization, pp. 148-166. Routledge, 2012.
45Mignolo, Walter D. “Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality." Cultural studies 21, no. 2-3 (2007): 449.
46Wallerstein, Immanuel. The modern world-system IV: Centrist liberalism triumphant, 1789-1914. Vol. 4. Univ of California Press, 2011.
47Williamson, John. "What Washington Means by Policy Reform." In Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened?, edited by John Williamson, 7-20. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1990.
48Rajagopal, Balakrishnan. International law from below: Development, social movements and third world resistance. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
49Neocolonialism is distinct from ’new imperialism’ in that it pertains to the methods through which powerful nations subtly sustain or amplify their sway over other nations, typically employing economic leverage, policy-making, and cultural hegemony. This occurs post the era of direct colonial rule. Conversely, ’New Imperialism’ refers to a phase during the late 19th and early 20th centuries when European powers and the United States actively pursued territorial annexation, motivated by the quest for fresh markets, raw materials, and strategic superiority. However, it’s crucial to note that these concepts are not entirely separate; neocolonialism can often be seen as a continuation of ’new imperial’ endeavours aimed at capitalist expansion.
50Knight, Dee. "How to Resist the Empire’s Neoliberal Debt Trap." CounterPunch (2022)
51Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1848. The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Books.
52Marx, Karl. "On the Thefts of Wood." Rheinische Zeitung, 1842.
53Nichols, Robert. "Marx, After the Feast." In Theft is Property! Dispossession and Critical Theory, 56.
54Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
55Lordon, Frédéric. "End of Innocence." New Left Review. April 12, 2024. https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/end-of-innocence.
56Polanyi, Karl. The great transformation. 2015.
57"Fascism and the Left." Marxists Internet Archive. Written November 1980. Transcription, Editing, and Markup by Paul Saba. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/australia/rem-fascism.htm.
58Polanyi, Karl. The great transformation. 2015.
59Ince, Onur Ulas. "Between equal rights: Primitive accumulation and capital’s violence." Political Theory 46, no. 6 (2018): 885.
60Cullather, Nick. Secret History: The CIA’s classified account of its Operations in Guatemala, 1952-1954. Stanford University Press, 2006.
61Shiraz, Zakia. "CIA Intervention in Chile and the Fall of the Allende Government in 1973." Journal of American Studies 45, no. 3 (2011): 603-613.
62"Chile: The Laboratory Test." Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed April 1, 2024. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chile-laboratory-test.
63"Al Harberger on Chile." PBS. Accessed April 1st, 2024. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_alharberger.html.
64Unexplored in this text, The United States has been thought to be involved in at least 15 regime changes in Latin America from the early 20th century to the early 21st century.
65Accumulation by dispossession is a concept in Marxist theory that describes the process by which capital is accumulated through the privatisation and commodification of public assets, and the exploitation or displacement of vulnerable populations.
66Klein, Naomi. The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Macmillan, 2007.
67Ullman, Harlan, James P. Wade, and L. A. Edney. Shock and awe: Achieving rapid dominance. Washington DC: Center for Advanced Concepts and Technology, 1996.
68Milton Friedman is, by most accounts, considered the primary begetter of neoliberalism.
69The Chicago Boys were a group of Chilean economists trained at the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, who implemented neoliberal economic policies in Chile during Pinochet’s dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s.
70Klein, Naomi. The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Macmillan, 2007.
71Rosenblueth, Emilio, and Roberto Meli. "The 1985 mexico earthquake." Concrete international 8, no. 5 (1986): 23-34.
72Friedman, Milton. 1982. Preface to Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman, ix-xi. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73Ibid.
74Ibid.
75Berta, Nathalie. "Emissions trading: Commodification of pollution—From resistance to proliferation." In The Routledge Handbook of Commodification, pp. 351-362. Routledge, 2023.
76Robinson, William I. Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, p. 123.
77Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present, 129, 126-138.
78Klein, Naomi. "The Other Doctor Shock: Milton Friedman and the Search for a Laissez-Faire Laboratory." In The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, 4972. New York: Picador, 2007.
79The metabolic rift is a concept that describes the alienation or separation of human beings from the natural processes of their environment, resulting from exploitative social and economic practices and resulting in ecological degradation, particularly in the context of capitalist agriculture and industrialization.
80The Anthropocene is a geological epoch marked by human activities significantly harming the biosphere through habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change.
81Saito, Kohei. "Marx’s theory of metabolism in the age of global ecological crisis." Historical materialism 28, no. 2 (2020): 3-24.
82The mode of production in a society refers to the combination of the means of production (like tools, machinery, and factories) and the social relations of production (how work is organized and how profits are distributed) that together drive the economic activity of that society. Said ‘mode’ in this context refers to the capitalist mode of production.
83Cooke, Alistair. "1985 Mexico City Earthquake." Letter from America. BBC Radio 4, September 27, 1985.
84Ibid.
85Klein, Naomi. "The Other Doctor Shock: Milton Friedman and the Search for a Laissez-Faire Laboratory." In The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, 4972. New York: Picador, 2007.
86Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. "Manufacturing consent." In Power and Inequality, pp. 198-206. Routledge, 2021.
87Carter, Ross. "A Critical Review Of Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine." DGR News Service, September 8, 2020.
88Esteva, L. "The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985—Consequences, lessons, and impact on research and practice." Earthquake Spectra 4, no. 3 (1988): 413-426.
89Cooke, Alistair. "1985 Mexico City Earthquake." Letter from America. BBC Radio 4, September 27, 1985.
90Sims, Jocelyn, and Jessie Romero. "Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s." Federal Reserve History 22 (2013).
91Ibid.
92Weaver, Thomas, James B. Greenberg, William L. Alexander, and Anne Browning- Aiken, eds. Neoliberalism and commodity production in Mexico. University Press of Colorado, 2012. 5.
93Greenberg, James B., Thomas Weaver, Anne Browning-Aiken, and William L. Alexander. "Conclusion: Structural Adjustment, Structural Violence." In Neoliberalism and Commodity Production in Mexico, 315-342. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2012.
94Ibid.
95Kristof, Nicholas D. "QUAKE IN MEXICO: THE ECONOMIC AFTERMATH; DISASTER MAY COMPLICATE DEBT WOES." The New York Times, September 21, 1985.
96Millet, Damien, and Eric Toussaint. "Indonesia: History of a bankruptcy orchestrated by IMF and the World Bank-CADTM." (2024).
97Kleinists refer here to individuals who support and advocate for the ideas and views of Naomi Klein.
98Fan, Lilianne. "Disaster as opportunity." Building back better in Aceh, Myanmar and Haiti (2013).
99"United Nations Economic and Social Council. ’Tsunami Special Envoy Bill Clinton Tells Ecosoc Most Challenging Days Lay Ahead in Recovery, Disaster Prevention, Applying Lessons Learned.’ July 14, 2005. https://press.un.org/en/2005/ecosoc6166.doc.htm."
100Valtonen, Pekka. The politics of agrarian transformation in Mexico. Tampere University Press, 2001. 10.
101"Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. ’Mexico City: 1985 and Today.’ April 6, 2020. https://www.itdp.org/2020/04/06/mexico-city-1985-and-today/."
102Blinder, Alan S. "Keynesian economics." The concise encyclopedia of economics 2, no. 008 (2008).
103Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) refers to an investment made by a firm or individual in one country into business interests located in another country, typically in the form of establishing business operations or acquiring business assets in the foreign country.
104Weaver, Thomas, James B. Greenberg, William L. Alexander, and Anne Browning- Aiken, eds. Neoliberalism and commodity production in Mexico. University Press of Colorado, 2012.
105Andrade, Gina. "The Rise of the New Left: AMLO’s Mexico in the 21st Century." (2020).
106Lustig, Nora Claudia. "The Unhappy End, Poverty and Inequality." In Mexico: The Remaking of an Economy, 213-221. Brookings Institution Press, 2000.
107Whitehead, Laurence. "Political Change and Economic Stabilization: The Economic Solidarity Pact." Mexico’s Alternative Political Futures (1989): 181-213.
108Jessop, Bob. "Spatial fixes, temporal fixes and spatio-temporal fixes." David Harvey: A critical reader (2006): 142-166.
109Individual reductionism is the philosophical stance that views complex systems or phenomena solely in terms of their individual components or parts, often ignoring the dynamics and interactions between these parts.
110Anderson, Kevin B. "Not Just Capital and Class: Marx on Non-Western Societies, Nationalism and Ethnicity." In Marx for Today, pp. 20-35. Routledge, 2013.
111This is not to suggest that Marx was free from dogmatism in his ’universalist’ teleological framework; indeed, his earlier writings certainly exhibit this trait. However, it is to assert that Marx, acknowledging the complexities of capitalism, consistently identified ’counter tendencies’ alongside each capitalist ’tendency’ he described. These counter tendencies possess the potential to disrupt the presumed universalist teleology, illustrating Marx’s capacity to integrate nuance into his theoretical constructs.
112The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is an economic theory proposing that the rate of profit on capital investment tends to decrease over time due to technological advancements and increased capital intensity, leading to a lower return on invested capital.
113Marx, Karl. Capital volume 1. Lulu. com, 2018.
114Carter, Ross. "A Critical Review Of Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine." DGR News Service, September 8, 2020.
115Ibid.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main argument of "The Seismic Shock Doctrine? A Critical Challenge To Naomi Kleins’ ’Disaster Capitalism’"?
The analysis critically evaluates the applicability of Naomi Klein’s "shock doctrine" in the context of the 1985 earthquake in Mexico. It argues that the evidence does not support the notion that the earthquake expedited neoliberal reforms in Mexico. Instead, it suggests that such reforms were already underway as part of a broader economic strategy independent of the disaster.
What is the "shock doctrine" as described by Naomi Klein?
Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine" posits that neoliberal policies are frequently enacted in states following crises and disasters. This involves policymakers and business entities exploiting both manufactured and natural calamities to advance controversial and frequently detrimental reforms in deregulation, privatisation, and austerity.
What evidence does the analysis use to refute Klein's assertion in the context of the 1985 Mexican earthquake?
The document presents several points: the Mexican federal government refused all foreign aid for reconstruction, did not seek immediate loans from the World Bank or the IMF, and strengthened building codes post-disaster, indicating a resurgence of state involvement rather than austerity. Additionally, a substantial World Bank loan secured in 1987 occurred significantly after the earthquake, making it improbable that the disaster made the public more amenable to such financial measures.
What is the historical context of neoliberal reforms in Mexico?
Mexico underwent neoliberal reforms as part of a broader economic strategy aligned with the "neoliberal revolution" of the 1980s. This involved deregulation, privatisation, and minimising state involvement in the economy. The analysis argues these reforms predated and were independent of the 1985 earthquake.
How does the document explain the economic downturn of 1974 and its relation to neoliberalism?
The economic downturn of 1974 in the imperial core led to overaccumulated capital due to reduced domestic wages and stagnant demand. Instead of empowering labour, the reaction ushered in the neoliberal revolution, emphasising deregulation and privatisation, and leading to temporal and spatial fixes of the overaccumulation crisis.
What role did the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) play in Latin America?
The BWIs, particularly the World Bank and the IMF, influenced by the U.S., viewed Latin America as essential to its hegemonic sphere. Latin American nations became targets for overaccumulated capital from the U.S., falling into debt traps and facing Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) that mandated privatisation and financialisation.
What is the Washington Consensus and its impact on Latin America?
The Washington Consensus introduced ten liberalising reforms purportedly to address financial difficulties in developing nations. These reforms are recognised as primarily aimed at making the economies of these countries more amenable to absorbing the overaccumulated capital from the imperial core, rather than facilitating their development.
What is neocolonialism, and how does it manifest in Latin America?
Neocolonialism is a form of economic coercion where powerful nations subtly sustain their influence over other nations, typically employing economic leverage, policy-making, and cultural hegemony. In Latin America, it manifested as sanctions and coercive debt traps when nations resisted privatisation.
How does crisis theory, particularly Klein’s "shock doctrine," relate to the Mexican context?
Klein's "shock doctrine" suggests that neoliberal policy makers capitalise on crises to implement controversial policies while the public is distracted. The document explores whether the 1985 Mexican earthquake was opportunistically used to push through contentious reforms. However, the analysis concludes that the earthquake did not accelerate neoliberal reforms in Mexico.
What does the document say about Milton Friedman's views on crises?
The document mentions Milton Friedman's articulation that "only a crisis - actual or perceived [and intentional or coincidental] - produces real change" and that "when that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas lying around," where he specifically refers to neoliberal ideologies as said "ideas lying around." This is related to how capital seizes chaos for its benefit.
What is the significance of Mexico refusing foreign aid after the 1985 earthquake?
The Mexican federal government's refusal of all forms of aid suggests a commitment to maintaining national sovereignty and/or a reduced capacity to manage external assistance due to existing SAPs. This challenges Klein's framework by indicating a prioritisation of economic independence over ceding sovereignty for external support, and indicates that the current situation was not accelerated but implemented previously.
How did the 1985 earthquake impact building regulations and social services in Mexico?
The earthquake led to the implementation of the Reglamento de Construcciones para el Distrito Federal to enhance building resilience, a reversal from previous liberalisation. Additionally, the government established the Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED) to prevent and mitigate the impacts of natural disasters, demonstrating a proactive approach to crisis prevention.
What role did foreign direct investment (FDI) play in Mexico after the earthquake?
There was a notable increase in foreign direct investment (FDI) into Mexico, primarily from the U.S., aligning with neoliberal principles. However, this investment was not a result of coercive economic policies such as structural adjustments or austerity measures imposed by the BWIs. It’s unclear if FDI targeted reconstruction needs or capitalised on undervalued assets.
What are the document's main criticisms of Naomi Klein’s "shock doctrine" in the context of the 1985 Mexican Earthquake?
The document criticizes Klein’s framework in the Mexican context for potential normative oversights or analytical reductionism, for the assumption that it did accelerate post-earthquake neoliberal policies. It suggest that the logic of crises (that capitalist industrialization amplified the metabolic rift and has contributed to the advancement of the anthropocene exacerbating the ecological crisis that define our time) as espoused by Klein may have broader normative oversights.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Elliot Goodell Ugalde (Autor:in), 2024, The Seismic Shock Doctrine? A Critical Challenge To Naomi Kleins’ ‘Disaster Capitalism’, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1470678
