Jeff Oliver (2011) Working paper. Do not redistribute without author’s consent.
INTRODUCTION
In 2005, former Colombian Minister of Justice, Carlos Medellín, penned the resounding phrase, “It is not possible to silence the voices of justice” (Medellín, 2005). For more than two decades, neoliberalism has been imposed on other countries. However, “The promised benefits of Neoliberalism have yet to materialize, at least for the majority of the world’s people” (Crotty, 2001, 5). The threat of forcing neoliberalism upon other cultures is reminiscent of Medellín’s words about “silencing the voices of justice.” Specifically, it raises the question, how does an externally-imposed neoliberal regime impact the work those of the Colombian Liberal Party have been trying to do for decades to aid underprivileged groups in the country? Does the introduction of a neoliberal model into a country like Colombia, negatively impact the work of those seeking justice (that which is right) for underrepresented groups?
Historically, the relationship between neoliberalism and development has come into conflict in several ways. Many countries’ definitions of development vary from the ideals of neoliberalism. And, while economic growth is a part of development, it is not the only part. Amartya Sen (1999) has posited that,
The ends and means of development require examination and scrutiny for a fuller understanding of the development process; it is simply not adequate to take as our basic objective just the maximization of income or wealth…economic growth cannot sensibly be treated as an end in itself. Development has to be more concerned with enhancing the lives we lead and the freedoms we enjoy. (14)
Development, according to Sen, should be concerned with a comprehensive understanding of enhancing people’s lives broadly.
There is also a cultural dimension to development. This means that development can mean different things in different cultures, and should be ranked according to some universal standard of development1 (McMichael, 2011; Sen, 1999, Szirmai, 2005). Neoliberalism has been packaged as a “great equalizer,” (Crotty, 2001; Chomsky, 1999). However, neoliberalism has become very much associated with power, world conquest and domination (Duménil and Levy, 2011; McMichael, 2011; Moyo, 2011; Szirmai, 2005).
Recent research has focused on the impact of neoliberal conquest on society. Neoliberal models of development have been linked to a host of issues such as voter apathy (Chomsky, 1999), inequality (Portes and Hoffman 2003; Boschi and Santana, 2012; Crotty, 2001; Duménil and Levy, 2011; Chomsky, 1999; Stiglitz and UN, 2010), instability (Crotty, 2001; Duménil and Levy, 2011; Chomsky, 1999), a sense of demoralization and social powerlessness (Chomsky, 1999), slowed long-term economic growth (Crotty, 2001), foreign domination (Crotty, 2001), rising unemployment (Crotty, 2001), increased frequency of financial crises (Crotty, 2001), and “in some cases, excessively rapid depletion of natural resources and degradation of the environment” (Stiglitz and the UN, 2010).
In short, neoliberalism is about power, for the benefit of the wealthy few (Duménil and Levy, 2011; Chomsky, 1999). There is a preponderance of literature on the impact of neoliberalism on society. There has also been an increased interest in neoliberal impacts and perceptions since the recession of 2007/8. Research has been conducted on the impact of neoliberalism in Latin American countries, but these have been largely cross-national studies. Furthermore, the extent to which the growing political left in Latin America is impacting policy is still unclear (Kingstone and Young, 2008, 29). Specifically, this study seeks to understand how the political left in Colombia negotiates the conflict which accompanies the introduction of neoliberal influence into their country. The balance is one of seeking justice for the “voiceless” and “powerless” in a setting that places more emphasis on wealth, and less on equitable and sustainable socioeconomic development.
METHOD
This study seeks to investigate the way El Tiempo newspaper, the voice of the Colombian Liberal Party, discusses neoliberalism for the time periods of 1991-1995 and 2006-2010. As recently as December 2011, the national government of Colombia has called El Tiempo “the most influential (newspaper) in the country” (Office of the Presidency of the Republic of Colombia, 2012; see also Colombia Country Profile, 2012). It has also been heralded for its ability to be both a vanguard of “the technological changes of an entire century,” while remaining true to its founding principles of “free and independent journalism” (Office of the Presidency of the Republic of Colombia, 2012).
The first five year time period, 1991-1995, encompasses the drafting and ratifying of a new constitution in the early 1990s. This time period, beginning with the new Constitution, marks the first “large-scale program of state modernization” in regards to modern neoliberalism in Colombia (Gutiérrez and Schönwälder, 2010, 214). It may be regarded as the beginning of any substantial neoliberal influence in Colombia.
The second five year time period, 2006-2010 covers the shift from the neoliberal period to what some are calling a post-neoliberal period, precipitated by the global financial crisis of 2007/8. Using the eltiempo.com search engine, the total number of articles matching the search term neoliberalismo was obtained for each year in the study. There were 1,544 total articles for the time period of the study. Then, the total number of articles for any given year was divided by 15.44 and rounded to the ones place. This was done with the intent of producing a total of 100 articles to be reviewed in the study, with the number of any given year proportionate to the total number of articles for that year. For example, in 2006 there were just 99 total articles matching the term neoliberalismo. For that year, six articles were selected (99/15.44=6.4, which rounds to 6). In 1993, there were a total of 253 articles matching the search term neoliberalismo. Therefore, 16 articles (253/15.44=16.4, rounded to 16) were selected to be analyzed for that year.
Every article was numbered 1 through n for any given year (where n=the total number of articles available in a given year). Then, a random digit generator was used to generate a random number between 1 and n for each year. This was repeated to obtain the predetermined sample size. In most cases, the random generator produced the requisite sample size without any duplication in the selection of articles. However, in a couple of cases where a duplicate was generated, the random generator was used to produce a different number to replace the duplicate.
In terms of selection of El Tiempo as the source of articles to be analyzed, some might argue that there is a degree of bias inherent in the fact that El Tiempo is the voice of the Colombian Liberal Party (CLP) (Colombia Country Profile, 2012). However, this is in fact the very purpose of the study, and consequently suits the purposes of the study quite well. Since the CLP holds a stance of social progressivism one might expect a richer sampling of instances of discussion about progress from a political leftist standpoint than from its more conservative counterparts. Furthermore, the current study does not seek to purport that its findings are indicative of unbiased national sentiment of the common Colombian national. Rather it seeks to shed light upon the way one of Colombia’s top opinion leaders presents ideas related to progress and development across time, in relation to the Liberal Party in Colombia. Given the highly influential nature of the newspaper in terms of total readership, and endorsement by prominent Colombian leaders, the paper is likely to be highly influential in terms of the dissemination of its ideas, in spite of (if not in conjunction with) any political leanings it may have.
DATA
Articles from El Tiempo support the claim by scholars that say the new constitution in 1991 brought with it the first significant de jure neoliberalism in Colombia. One El Tiempo writer thought of it this way:
Among all the economic and practical reasons supported by the document which has been alluded to (the Constitution of 1991), there is one of doubtless importance. They emphasize the transcendence of taking advantage of a new era of progress, in which the socialist world comes crashing down in the face of perpetual capitalism. It falls due to its failure in the practical application of its principles and, in the face thereof, free enterprise and all aspects of liberalism2 arise triumphant in all aspects. (La Voz Gremial, 1991)
From a world systems perspective, this un-cited writer for El Tiempo, speaks of a socialist era as ending along with the coming of the new Constitution, and a capitalist era appeared to be poised to replace it. Themes of hegemony and core vs. peripheral countries may readily be thought to underlie these expressions observed in this time period in El Tiempo articles. The US hegemonic imposition of compulsory neoliberal practice in much of South American at the time provides historical context for this concept, which is echoed repeatedly in El Tiempo in the early 1990s. This idea of compulsion into neoliberal policy was also reflected in the word choice of writer Luis Prieto Ocampo in 1994.
Today’s critics have invented…the curious nickname of ‘neoliberalism’ to criticize the bold decision (of César Gaviria, 36th President of Colombia) to insert the country in the international currents of commerce and production and to force its producers to modernize themselves to be able to compete and gain external markets. (Ocampo, 1994)
The so-classified neoliberal actions of then-President Gaviria, portrayed by Ocampo as forceful in nature, show the way the spread of neoliberalism is seen as hegemonic and marginalizing. While the brunt of this particular example may be the President of Colombia, Gaviria was often criticized at that time, and still is to the time of this writing for the way he was seen as instituting a neoliberal agenda in the country.
In August of 2007, university docent, and doctor of Comparative Rights, Pedro Panchique, wrote an article covering a visit by former president Gaviria. Of Gaviria’s time in the presidency, Pacanchique wrote, “Neoliberalism, or wild capitalism, which Gaviria implemented, condemned the vast majority of our people, certainly the most humble of them, to hunger and suffering” (Pacanchique, 2007).
In an article in May of 2008, a claim appeared that, “Gaviria’s (presidency) was ‘married to Washington Consensus neoliberalism’ and its associated high social costs (Castro, 2008). In 1994 one columnist reported on what was termed “the devastating effects of the neoliberal model” under the administration of Gaviria. This columnist highlights the fact that in the four year period from 1990 to 1994, poverty was reported to increase from 13 million to 15 million “poor persons” in the country (Ataques de parejo a Gaviria, 1994).
The animosity expressed toward Gaviria may be related to his association with the entrance of neoliberalism into the country. In my review of articles, the animosity I saw directed toward him seemed to be more directed toward neoliberalism than the individual himself. Animosity in the articles in general markedly increased with the adoption of the new Constitution, which was viewed as a vessel of neoliberal policy as explained above. It seemed that neoliberalism was being reified after entering the country, and after becoming part of the written code, or “magna carta” of the country. It seemed, as a new, emergent entity, to produce similar animosities toward leaders of Colombia as those which were formerly directed toward world leaders in the neoliberal centers of the world.
The reaction to neoliberal infiltration seemed to gain some support through the first few years of the 1990s. In January 1995, Abdon Espinosa Valderrama, a regular guest writer on economics for El Tiempo, indicated that, at one point, the US was looked upon by South American countries, including Colombia, as a model to pattern themselves after. This, at first, seemed to show support for the idea of increasing neoliberal acceptance, but the second part of the quote casts some doubt on that idea. Espinosa Valderrama went on to point out that, at the pinnacle of the United States’ neoliberal-fueled growth, “We questioned if they would be able to indefinitely maintain the prosperity conditioned on such volatile resources” (Espinosa Valderrama, 1995). The tone of this article, and others like it might best be defined as cautious tolerance of neoliberalism for a few years. Whatever, tolerance was gained, however, seemed to fade as the full impact of the Mexican Peso Crisis, which began in December of 1994, began to unfold.
In light of the crisis, some supporters of neoliberalism emphasized that the crisis did not indicate that neoliberalism was a failed model (Efe, 1995). However, the majority of articles in my observation pointed to neoliberalism as a culprit in the Mexican Peso Crisis. Summarily, then-IMF chief Michel Camdessus “insisted that the Mexican peso crisis teaches us a hard lesson about the necessity of maintaining internal macroeconomic discipline” (Efe, 1995), bringing to mind ideas of market regulation and surveillance which are outside the realm of neoliberal ideology.
This time period was also characterized by predictions of the end of neoliberalism (what some might call the current world system). These observations reflect the idea that a failed economy was evidence of neoliberalism as a “bad economic model.” However, these assertions likely stem from perceptions of public acceptance more than some change in attitude on the part of the El Tiempo writer. In other words, such claims may have been made during other time periods as well if the writer felt such a claim would have be publically accepted. It seems that against the backdrop of an economic failure, a claim of the end of neoliberalism will be better received.
Thus, times of recession seemed to be used as evidence of neoliberalism as a failed model. Many writers suggested that local recessions were not only evidence that neoliberalism had failed in those circumstances, but that it has always been a flawed model that was doomed to fail. The percentage of articles reviewed in this study that were negatively skewed toward neoliberalism increased during times of recession: the Mexican Peso Crisis and financial downturns of other Latin American countries in the mid-1990s (1994/5), and the global recession of 2008. The only other year with higher than average anti-neoliberalism was the year of the new Constitution.
[about table 1,2 and figure 1,2 here]
Though frequent in other time periods in the study, specific and overt references to social equality seemed to take a backseat during times of recession. Even so, there are illusions to social equality embedded in many articles during the recession, that while less overt are still evidence that social equality fueled much of the discussion about the recessions. An example can be seen in the following quote, which references the Mexican Peso Crisis. “The recession which began December 22 took those who had found a comfortable place in the neoliberal world of quick earnings without social commitments by surprise” (AFP, 1995, emphasis added). While most of this article focuses on the crisis itself, and the political and economic factors that led to the crisis, the idea of social commitment is still mentioned. This seems to reflect the idea mentioned above, that development in Colombia has a focus on the dual social-economic nature of development.
While the Mexican Peso Crisis and other financial downturns in Latin America in the mid-1900s, and the global crisis of 2007/8 appears to have possibly reversed any tolerance for neoliberalism, it may have experienced a small increase during the increment of time not included in this study between 1995 and 2006, as the incidence of negative skew fell back to pre-Mexican Peso Crisis levels for the first year of the second time period of the study.
Throughout the undulating negativity throughout these two time periods, the ongoing debate with regards to neoliberal influence was most commonly framed as one of “neoliberal” vs. “social democrat.” These were largely seen as being in direct opposition to each other, though there were a few exceptions. At the center of the argument for the social democrat is the negative impact neoliberalism has on development (most commonly defined by El Tiempo writers as economic and social development). While the typical social democrat in this study believes in economic growth, it must take place in their mind in a fair and sustainable way, which necessarily involves oversight by the state.
To the prototypical social democrat in this study, the argument against neoliberalism is that it seeks economic growth without real regard for the welfare of larger society. It neglects care for the poor, the victim and the environment. While caring for the poor and underprivileged frequently surfaced as a theme in the study as a whole, references to these groups appeared to take a backseat in times of economic crisis. This held true during the Mexican Peso Crisis in the mid-1990s as well as the global recession of 2007/8. This seems to stand in stark contrast to the UN’s reaction to world economic crisis of 2007/8 in which the UN quickly made arrangements to understand the impact of that recession on underprivileged groups, and put plans in place to come to their aid (United Nations General Assembly, 2009, 1).
One ET writer, Alejandro Santos Rubino, posed a question that seems to be at the center of the debate. In an article entitled “Toward the Humanization of Progress” he wrote, “but, outside of the contention between neoliberals and social-democrats, it is worth asking ourselves, ‘Where is development headed? Development for the people, or people for development?’” (Santos Rubino, 1993). These attempts to find the appropriate balance in light of the introduction of a new, neoliberal influence, evidence the struggle and lack of agreement on the specific way this should be done. However, the common thread for all authors was that, whether or not neoliberal ideals could help economic growth, it should not be done at the expense of equity, justice and sustainability.
The sheer number of articles on the topic of social democrats vs. neoliberals speaks either to how important this debate was to the vast El Tiempo readership, or at least how important it was portrayed to be by the newspaper. Either way, this topic was covered with such frequency that it seems unlikely to have not been very influential during this time period. Furthermore, articles categorized as participating in this debate, nearly exclusively favored the position of the social democrat. While this is not necessarily a surprise in light of the leftists leanings of the paper, it hearkens back again to the probability that this dialogic was very influential.
While the resistance to neoliberal policy was predominantly due to its disharmony with the concern of the Colombian Liberal Party for sustainable and equitable long term economic growth, there were variations in the way different writers felt this should best be done. The writers seemed to be navigating through a new system of neoliberal ideals, while still fighting to retain their culture, which may be described as seeking economic growth, but not at the expense of justice. This type of dialogic by the media giant has implications for further understanding what may be thought of as the battle between hegemonic neoliberal influence and what some see as the “attack” on the country’s inveterate culture of development. In other words, El Tiempo articles of this kind seemed to be a snapshot of how many felt neoliberal influence was little more than a threat to their inveterate culture of development. This is in keeping with what some scholars of development have suggested—that development is little more than “a euphemism for Western penetration and domination of the world, involving great misery and exploitation in both past and present” (Szirmai, 2005, 10). The feeling of being forced to respond to crises in keeping with the perceived prescription of core nations was prevalent in Colombia’s largest newspaper during the two periods of this study. In reflecting upon times of financial downturn in different Latin American countries in the 1990s, José Manuel Alvarez, a guest columnist from Chile, wrote,
From an economic point of view, we are forcibly in a position of heterodoxy. Neoliberal extremism is not a solution—not to our problems at least…(In our economic downturn) we had to place a tourniquet on exchange rates, which unleashed strong protest from neoliberal pontiffs, as if it had been the right thing to leave all of our reserves and later go on our knees before the International Monetary Fund and ask for them to solve our problem out of charity. (Alvarez, 1995)
Alvarez seems to reflect upon the apparent feeling of conflict present in these countries in wanting to respond to these crises based on their culture, but feeling forced to respond instead according to “neoliberal extremism.” This hegemonic compulsion toward neoliberal policy, undermines the culture of these countries as expressed by this author, that neoliberalism is not a solution to their problems; and the practices, presumably of stimulus packages and countercyclical action feels like a threat to their ability to care for themselves later on, at which point they will be compelled to crawl on their knees to the IMF, begging for charity (For discussion on how the IMF often helps more than hurts in such cases, see Stiglitz, 2010).
Furthermore, when Bill Clinton was elected as President of the United States, hopes were high for some in the CLP that the imposition of neoliberalism would be reduced. Popular Colombian columnist “D ARTAGNAN” posited that, “With Clinton, the neoliberal theses are finally starting to fade” (1992).
The evidences from these articles that individuals in Colombia felt that neoliberalism was “forced” on them, and hoped to be free of it (neoliberalism is “finally starting to fade”) begs the question: Why should development require the compulsory alignment of a peripheral country’s development plan with that of a core nation compelling them to do so? Development has a cultural dimension. It is often ignored, and frequently undermined by powerful nations in their treatment of the nations they marginalize. But, the need to understand and respect culture across and within borders is an essential part of development in a globalized era, and one that is, at the present, very lacking—especially on the part of some of the core, powerful nations.
For years, neoliberalism has been the face of domination of the powerful elite. It benefits a small group of individuals, relatively speaking and hurts everyone else. It is no wonder an article in El Tiempo in May of 1994, carried the words of Paul Krugman, “competition is a dangerous obsession that can put the delicate economic system of the world in danger” (El Regreso de Marx, 1994). These are words that seem to foreshadow the 2007/8 crisis, which at that time was yet to occur. The 2007/8 crisis was caused by the choices of the powerful few to amass wealth in a non-sustainable and precarious way; and the rest of the world suffered the consequences.
The voices speaking through these articles address the concerns inherent in the way neoliberal conquest and coercion might impact los damnificados3 and the poor.
The way columnists wrote about Colombia’s approach to development was very two-pronged—focused on economic growth, balanced with social equality and progress. This balanced perspective often came into conflict with increasing neoliberal influence in the country, as evidenced in the articles. This often manifested itself in terms of the possible negative impact on the poor and los damnificados.
The way the Colombian Liberal Party was seeking justice in development (justice that is right and equitable for all of society in a sustainable way) seemed to be threatened in their minds by the forcible imposition of neoliberal countries in the nation. Neoliberal attempts to silence their voices which are calling for equitable and sustainable development call into question whether outside forces were respecting their right to a development plan that is within their cultural bounds.
For the columnists in El Tiempo, neoliberalism seems to have attempted to introduce a new culture into their society. This new culture was one that contradicted their goals for development in many ways. In this new era of neoliberalism, they seemed to see uncontrolled economic growth as leading to multiple negative outcomes. One negative outcome which they anticipated was “many millions” in Poverty in Colombia by the year 2020 (Santos Rubino, 1993). They also saw the neoliberal impact as extending beyond the bounds of their country. They wrote of the 900 million without access to education, 1 billion without potable water, 100 million homeless, and the 14 million children who will not live to age 5 in the developing world (Santos Rubino, 1993).
“In neoliberal models, the average citizen is left to his or her own luck,” asserted an economist guest writer. He continued, “The only ones who will be saved from the sanctions are those which are experts, better informed or better advised” (Ospina, 1994).
Silencing the voices of justice can be detrimental to a society, but it can also be detrimental to outside nations which undermine that culture (McMichael, 2011, xiv). However, another issue may be raised through columnist Alejandro Santos Rubino’s thoughts on inequality.
If it is true that countries like Chile and Brazil have been models of development for many academics of Latin America, behind the impact of the statistics, both nations reveal situations that are very different. (For) one, doubtless economic growth, but also a high concentration of wealth in the case of Chile, and inhumane conditions of life for the thick of society, in the Brazilian case. (sic) (These) Realities (are) not always reflected in charts. (Santos Rubino, 1993)
Santos Rubino has hit upon the fact that country-level data may mask the true effect of what is happening for certain groups within the country. If the rich increase in wealth while the poor are getting poorer, country level data may show no change or even an increase in national wealth; but this does not tell the whole story of what is occurring. Those who are wealthy may see little incentive to help the cause of the less-fortunate, but certainly, as McMichael suggests, one part of society cannot be brought down without a negative impact on the rest of society. The “silent voices” of those who are suffering, but do not show up on the “charts” must be heard, both for the sake of justice as well as the sustainable development of the larger society.
Given that “neoliberalism is a social order aimed at the generation of income for the upper income brackets, not investment in production nor, even less, social progress,” (Duménil and Levy, 2011, 22) the potential for neglect of these groups may be greater when neoliberal influence is more widespread in a country. Or, as frequent El Tiempo writer and economist Abdón Espinosa Valderrama described it, “the state is so entangled in neoliberalism that it reduces it to see its abuses from afar… (it) converts it into an arrogant and usurping monster” (Espinosa Valderrama, 2006).
CONCLUSION
While most parties from either side of the debate see economic growth as acceptable and necessary, the balance between these is highly contested. The political left is gaining influence in Latin American countries, and the voices of those who write for El Tiempo, the voice of the Colombian Liberal Party, seek justice for those who are poor, victims, unheard or unnoticed. The influx of neoliberal ideals, beginning, arguable with the new Constitution of 1991, seems to threaten their objectives of working toward equitable and sustainable growth and development.
For over two decades, core nations have introduced neoliberalism into nations of the periphery. This can threaten the development models which are more culturally relevant to the nations of periphery. Scholars have recently addressed the need for cultural sensitivity and sustainability in the world system.
The Colombian Liberal Party seemed committed to development plans that are in keeping with these two factors. However, neoliberal ideology which has entered the country seemed to be viewed as a threat to fully achieving their goals, as neoliberal ideals run contrary to these goals. With accrual of wealth as the main focus of neoliberalism, any focus on sustainable and equitable development is reduced, taking a back seat to a larger goal of income generation.
Many of the Latin American countries that had adopted neoliberal practices between the 1980s and 1990s experienced financial downturn in the mid-1990s. This seemed to decrease any tolerance the CLP might have adopted prior to those periods. Recessions also seemed to increase conversation about economics, but decrease meaningful and specific dialogic about the poor and underprivileged. The presence of neoliberal ideals in Colombia appears to create feelings of repression for information leaders who were writing for El Tiempo.
Economically, growth appears to be spoken of as unsustainable, and inequitable under the neoliberal model. Increasing wealth by the rich may hide decreasing wealth by the poor when looking only at country-level data. New world powers may arise within the neoliberal system, the system may remain but be reformed, or a new world system may emerge. However, there can be little doubt that unless the “voices of justice” are heard, larger society will, in the long run be negatively impacted. By allowing countries a space for models of development within the context of their own culture, and responsibly seeking equitable and sustainable growth, the world system will ultimately benefit.
FIGURES
| Table 1. Skew Toward Neoliberalism 1991-1995 | ||||
| Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
| 1991* | 80.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | |
| 1992 | 66.7% | 13.3% | 20.0% | |
| 1993 | 66.7% | 33.3% | 0.0% | |
| 1994** | 85.7% | 14.3% | 0.0% | |
| 1995** | 84.6% | 15.4% | 0.0% | |
* Constitution year
** Period of recession
Figure 1. Skew Toward Neoliberalism: 1991-1995
| Table 2. Skew Toward Neoliberalism 2006-2010 | ||||
| Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
| 2006 | 66.7% | 16.7% | 0.0% | |
| 2007 | 62.5% | 37.5% | 0.0% | |
| 2008** | 88.9% | 11.1% | 0.0% | |
| 2009 | 71.4% | 28.6% | 0.0% | |
| 2010 | 71.4% | 14.3% | 14.3% | |
** Period of recession
Figure 2. Skew Toward Neoliberalism: 2006-2010
FOOTNOTES
- For more on linear, standardized development see McMichael’s discussion of Rostow in (McMichael, 2011, 5)
- The term “liberalism” was often used in a non-differentiated sense in Colombia. Here “liberalism” refers to market “liberalism,” or the free market. The term is also used in the sociopolitical sense.
- Roughly translated—those who have been victimized or wronged in a serious way.
REFERENCES
AFP. (1995, May 27). Condena al Neoliberalismo en Cumbre de las Izquierdas. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-333457
Alvarez, J.M. (1995). La Justicia Social No Es un Anacronismo. El Tiempo. Retrieved http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-363452
Ataques de parejo a Gaviria. (1994, February 8). El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-35475
Boschi, R. and Santana C. H. (2012). Development and semi-periphery: Post-neoliberal trajectories in South America and Central Eastern Europe. Anthem Press. London, UK.
Castro, J. (2008, May 21). Cinco en Linea. El Tiempo. Retrieved http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-4199239
CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html retrieved 2/20/2012.
Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people: Neoliberalism & global order. Seven Stories Press. New York, NY.
Colombia Country Profile. (2012, April 3). BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1212798.stm
Crotty, J. (2001). Structural contradictions of current capitalism: A Keynes-Marx-Schumpeter analysis. Presented at the Conference on Globalization, Structural Change and Income Distribution, Chennai, India.
D ARTAGNAN. (1992). Clinton y Colombia. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-237278
Duménil, G. and Levy, D. (2011). The crisis of neoliberalism. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA
Efe. (1995, March 8). Regaño del FMI y el BM en Cumbre de Copenhague. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-285988
El Regreso de Marx. (1994, May 4). El Tiempo.Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-118823
Espinosa Valderrama, A. (1995, January 7). Aflicción y lección de la crisis Mexicana. El Tiempo. Retrieved from www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-306766
Espinosa Valderrama, A. (2006, August 10). Nueva etapa de la seguridad democrática. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-2132210
Gutiérrez, F. and Schönwälder, G. (2010). Economic liberalization and political violence: Utopia or dystopia? Pluto Press. New York, NY.
Huber, E. and Solt, F. (2004). Successes and failures of neoliberalism. Latin American Research Review, 39(3).
Kingstone, P., & Young, J. (2008). Partisanship and Policy Choice: What’s Left for the Left in Latin America? Political Research Quarterly.
La Voz Gremial. (1991, April 20). El Tiempo.Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-67017
McMichael, P. (2011). Development and social change: A global perspective. Sage Publications, Inc. Los Angeles, CA
Medellín, C. (2005). Pretender acallar las voces de la justicia es imposible. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-1818132
Moyo, D. (2011). How the West was Lost: Fifty years of economic folly—and the stark choices ahead. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York City, NY
Ocampo, L.P. (1994, November 29). La injusticia desgavirización. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-256381
Office of the Presidency of the Republic of Colombia http://wsp.presidencia.gov.co/Prensa/2011/Diciembre/Paginas/20111213_15.aspx retrieved 2/20/2012.
Ospina, W. (1994, April 11). La estrategia de los autovalúos. El Tiempo.Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-101195
Paranchique, P. (2007, August 23). Columna abierta/Persona no grata. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-3691495
Portes, A., & Hoffman, K. (2003). Latin American class structures: Their composition and change during the neoliberal era. Latin American Research Review, 41-82.
Santos Rubino, A. (1993, June 23). Hacia la humanización del progreso. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-142240
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, NY Stiglitz, J. E., & United Nations. (2010). The Stiglitz report: Reforming the international monetary and financial systems in the wake of the global crisis. New York, N.Y: The New Press.
Szirmai, A. (2005).The Dynamics of Socio-Economic Development: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
United Nations General Assembly, 63rd Session. (2009). A/RES/63/303, Agenda Item 48.
Jeffrey R. Oliver 