NEOLIBERALISM PHILOSOPHY IN LEGAL REGULATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY AS DIRECTION TO HANDLE WITH SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN COMPANY’S PURPOSE

Abstract

Our research lies in the field of correlation between the companies' development and philosophy of neoliberalism, philosophy that stood behind the policies of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States. The common significant feature of the above was government spending reduction and, as logically follows, reduction of government active involvement; this led to the policy of privatisation, market deregulation, lesser budgets and reduced numbers of government officials. Any opinion on neoliberalism inevitably depends on one’s ideology, it cannot be purely objective. This is what makes it more controversial and less “scientific”, but also more interesting. This question in itself shows us conflict between two common views: that focus on shareholders’ profit slows companies’ development, and an opposing one, suggesting that it enhances efficiency. There is also a third part of it: connection of neoliberalism to social inequalities. Yet the latter are hardly connected to efficiency and development; these are separate issues. Economy may be strong and fast-developing, yet having a great social inequality (as it often happened in 19th century), it may be based primarily on social policies, and even seem strong, but bear a flaw that would eventually cause its downfall (as proved by Soviet Union), or it may try to focus on both development and society (as many countries try to do now). Every combination has its own strengths and weaknesses; here is when an ideology becomes important, since ideology sets a list of priorities, thus allowing to decide which one is “better”. Although most academic works tend to avoid such decision, it becomes extremely important when a question of governmental policies arise, so it should not be ignored. Another important mental aspect are moral standards of a particular society; should at least those be common, they could have become a ground for standardisation. But, as philosophy of moral relativism suggests, they are not, [6] so current local ideology and practical considerations remain chief reasons to make a choice.