Saving Haiti from disaster capitalism

Haiti becomes a target for economic "shock therapy"

Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine warned of the rise of "disaster capitalism", under which governments and corporations use disasters as a chance to push through free-market policies unachievable in times of stability.

Where most see a crisis, neoliberal actors spy new market opportunities. And with poor countries desperate for any kind of aid, they are often forced to carry out extensive privatisation, deregulation and wage cuts in return.

Following the devastation inflicted on Haiti by Tuesday's earthquake, it's clear that the country has become a target for such economic "shock therapy". Over at Left Foot Forward, Adam Ramsay (recently interviewed by the NS) notes that some right-wing institutions have explicitly declared their intention to use the disaster to further a corporate agenda.

In the introduction to a paper on Haiti, originally titled "Amidst the Suffering, Crisis in Haiti Offers Opportunities to the US", the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, declared:

In addition to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, the US response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti offers opportunities to reshape Haiti's long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region.

After just two hours, the foundation removed the offending passage and changed the title of the paper to the rather gentler "Things to Remember While Helping Haiti". But the damage was done.

Meanwhile, according to the Nation's Richard Kim, the IMF has agreed a new $100m loan to Haiti but has insisted on stringent conditions, including raising electricity prices, keeping inflation low and freezing pay for all state employees except those on the minimum wage.

As Klein argues in the video above, it is up to campaigners to insist that Haiti receive grants, not loans. With existing debts of $891m, the people of Haiti cannot afford for economic dogma to trump human need.

Subscribe to the New Statesman and we'll donate £20 to UNICEF's Haiti appeal

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.