UDHR social rights were compatible with market order, not a threat to it

Evidence

In reality, the social and economic rights in the UDHR were hardly as threatening to the market order as Hayek and his comrades seemed to believe. Framed in minimalist terms, and orientated towards securing the racial and gender order of mid-twentieth-century capitalism, these social and economic rights were ultimately far more compatible with a liberal market than the neoliberals initially feared. Far from ushering in a ‘social revolution’ that overturned hierarchies of status and inequalities of wealth, social and economic rights increasingly came to signify merely the aspiration to realise over time a basic minimum for the most impoverished. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 224

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to contemporary debates on whether human-rights discourse has been co-opted by or is inherently compatible with neoliberalism — Samuel Moyn’s ‘Not Enough’ thesis about a human-rights minimum vs. distributive justice. — connects to: The UDHR’s social and economic rights were designed to pacify, not radicalize — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights
, 180; Neoliberal human rights primarily preserve the market order rather than protect individuals — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights
, 45; The UDHR’s flexible social rights language proved compatible with neoliberal poverty management — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights
, 64 (+1 more)
  • ADDENDUM: Directly relevant to the reader’s human-rights/economic-policy nexus interest; supports a follow-up on how rights discourse undersells distributive justice.

Broader Connections