Neoliberal property rights justify imposing governance structures for foreign investors.

Evidence

The right to property, which Marx described as the foundation of the whole system, was, in his view, a right to self-interest. For earlier liberals, such as John Locke, property was justified as a means to ‘improvement’. God meant the earth to be cultivated, and so gave it to the ‘industrious and rational’. Consistent with this justification, Mises bemoaned that much of the world’s mineral wealth was located in areas ‘whose inhabitants are too ignorant, too inert, or too dull to take advantage of the riches nature has bestowed upon them’. As in the vision of earlier neoliberals, the right to private property ensured wealth was put in the hands of those most capable of utilising it. But they went further than this, stressing the institutional conditions in which such rights would be secure. If the governments of areas rich in resources prevented ‘aliens’ from exploiting this wealth, or their arbitrary conduct of public affairs threatened foreign investments, serious harm would result to all as a consequence. Preventing such harm required the ‘right to keep foreign investments safe and to move capital freely across borders’. A neoliberal right to property is the right to impose ‘good governance’ and the institutional structures that private investment requires across the globe. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 51

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to ‘good governance’ debates in development economics and the IMF/World Bank conditionality literature the reader works with. — connects to: Neoliberals redeployed human rights to protect investors and property — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 428; Neoliberals weaponized human rights language to protect private property and market order — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 76; Neoliberals deployed human rights language to justify property rights and dismantling welfare — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 7 (+8 more)
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how does this ‘right to property as good governance’ claim relate to contemporary investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses?

Broader Connections

• Neoliberals redeployed human rights to protect investors and property #corroborates (0.88) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 428
• Neoliberals weaponized human rights language to protect private property and market order #corroborates (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 76
• Neoliberals deployed human rights language to justify property rights and dismantling welfare #corroborates (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 7
• Neoliberals framed human rights as a tool to enforce global standards protecting private capital #corroborates (0.85)
• Neoliberals wanted international rules to discipline states, not just markets #expands (0.82) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 266
• Neoliberal freedom can be a vehicle for governance and domination #corroborates (0.80) — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 153
• Neoliberal governance fuses state and capital aims, swapping their traditional roles #corroborates (0.80) — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 294
• Neoliberal human rights legitimize state violence to protect global markets. #expands (0.75)