USA: +1 415 256 4347 
Sign in
Question 1
After the financial crisis of 2008, which hit the global economy hard, neo-liberal economic policies came under increased scrutiny. Some of these policies were unpopular, while others were defended as necessary to ensure the health of the market economy. However, the fact remains that the system has failed the people it was supposed to help. There is a growing understanding that the current model of neoliberal capitalism is no longer fit for purpose.
There are many different forms of liberalism, and it is essential first to understand the differences between them. Neo-liberalism is a Doctrine of economics popular in the 1970s and 1980s, and it is still even today (Kotz, 2015). It is a political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of competition and the free market. The core ideas of neo-liberalism can be boiled down to two concepts: the free market and limited government. However, because of its wide application and deep roots, it is important to be very clear about neoliberalism. This can be achieved by creating a short definition of neo-liberalism.
Neoliberalism was first used in an article published in “The New York Times on March 6, 1971.” The article discussed the decline in living standards seen in many countries during the 1960s and how it was due to the policies of previous administrations. The term, which was later used to describe the policies of the late Ford administration, was coined to describe the decline in living standards seen in Europe, especially Britain. The article, entitled “A Neo-Liberal Nightmare,” described the policies of the British Labour government of the time as neo-liberal, as did the writings of the Institute of Economic Affairs (Kotz, 2015).
The term was used to describe policies that favoured the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and middle class. The economic actions taken by the subsequent eight-year administrations of Lyndon B. Johnson were described as neo-liberal.
Many analysts believe that the current neo-liberal period will pass. A new cycle of economic growth and social justice will begin with the advent of the next Republican administration. However, Steger (2017) assert that given the state of the world and the continuing impact of the 2008 financial crisis, there is a need for a sweeping change in economic and social policies. It is important to recognize that the current system is not sustainable and has failed the people it was supposed to help. This can be achieved by building an economy that serves the needs of the people and not the other way around. This can be achieved by removing the barriers that stand in the way of the people achieving their full potential and investing in education and healthcare, proven valuable assets for development.
Conclusively, in a world where immense wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, neo-liberalism has served its purpose well. It has allowed the rich to get richer while providing the means for the poor to survive. Therefore, it is important to analyse the current state of neoliberalism and its roots. Doing so will enable the people to understand the system’s shortcomings better and improve the chances of a nonviolent revival.
Question 2
The economic and health crisis has given rise to pro – employee shift at some businesses. Sarah Kaplan claims that they should keep them and even do more. Usually, “Build Back Better” is a termed made up by a United Nation task force responsible for coming up with enhanced disaster – recovery scheme. Kaplan (2020) claims that several corporates made a significant fuss over claiming the Business Roundtable’s statement purpose updated, asserting shareholder primacy end in favor of ‘stakeholder capitalism’ that targets to build value for suppliers, employees and societies. In addition to this, Kaplan asserts that Covid – 19 is showing fractures in the economy that most people in the corporates elite might not be aware of in the past.
Moreover, Kaplan outline several strategies of building back better including; using recovery to build resilience. Hence, in the midst of the COVID -19 epidemic, build back better translates in making good on the devotion to stakeholders that everybody talked about the previous years. Kaplan further states that a more socially accountable method might also be a more resilient approach. For companies to build back better, Kaplan (2020) claims they need to realign, redesign and reorient work for the 21st century. At first, businesses need to drastically redesign their work. Other approaches that Kaplan outline are reorienting priorities.
The Covid – 19 crisis builds an opening for modern settlement with diverse priorities. As companies who think about survival are also merging new futures. Additionally, reconfiguring corporate governance is another approach that Kaplan highlights whereby she claims corporates boards will need to be prepared for the new normal. The stakeholders need to have a seat at the table, for instance in Germany, labor is represented on “aufsichtstrat” which is the supervisory boards. Kaplan conclude that building back better may boost forms of governance that are effectively attuned to different stakeholders. Besides, cooperatives – with their economic participation and democratic management process by members might be effectively suited to a post – COVID -19.
Successful organizations have a formula that consists of smart, focused management and wise, judicious use of resources. This combination results in continuous improvement—a process that can be both challenging and rewarding. When companies successfully build back better, they have maintained and even increased profitability, adjusted their structure to meet their changing needs better, and reduced the time it takes for their operations to return to full capacity.
Noy, Ferrarini and Park (2019) state that effective management is necessary for building back better. Good management is based on sound leadership principles, employee engagement, and effective management of people. Effective management recognizes that the best companies are built by the best teams. It also recognizes that teams are often made up of individuals with different strengths and weaknesses. In this case, it’s important to build a team that includes people with complementary skills and individuals with the same or similar skill sets.
The best way to build back better for many companies is to start small. “Dig in,” and “build back better” quickly; starting small can be extremely difficult and expensive. To succeed, companies need to set a higher goal and plan how they will achieve it. In addition to this Noy, Ferrarini and Park (2019) claim that setting a goal, it’s also important to have a plan for measuring progress. To “dig in” and “build back better” quickly, it’s helpful to track customer behavior and “see what moves” what pieces of the customer journey. To keep track of the “what,” measure customer satisfaction in volume, value, and frequency of purchases. To “dig in” and “build back better” quickly, it’s important to keep an eye on your financial performance and the performance of your competitors.
References
Kaplan, S. (2020). What it means for businesses to ‘build back better’ after COVID-19. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(1), 85-90.
Kotz, D. M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. In The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism. Harvard University Press.
Noy, I., Ferrarini, B., & Park, D. (2019). Build Back Better: What Is It, and What Should It Be? Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series, (600).
Steger, M. B. (2017). Globalization: A very short introduction (Vol. 86). Oxford University Press.
