新自由主义是一种备受争议的治理形式。新自由主义思想以经济增长为基础，对道德和社会产生了消极影响。今天关于这一话题的文献被批评家们高度主导，他们认为这一概念的定义、传播和效果都是对普通民众的提升(Thorson, 2009)。“新自由主义”一词指的是基于市场关系扩展的政治经济治理的新形式。新自由主义是一种强调减少政府对个人经济自由干预的意识形态。在这 篇 英国论文代写价格-新自由主义的意识形态的文章中，我们试图将新自由主义的意识形态与治理的概念联系起来。我们将深入研究治理概念和新自由主义的历史，并试图吸收这两个术语在当前语境下是如何成为同义词的。
The supporters of neo-liberalism have always been insisting that unrepressed inequality in the earnings and flexible wages would lead to enormous reduction in the issue of unemployment. However, globally in all the rich countries both unemployment and inequality have risen dramatically. This situation is worse in the last three decades than most of the recent history of recessions, with rock bottom level of GDPs. The situation today could be compared to that after World War-II. The ideologies of neo-liberalism have failed because of the two fold factors affecting each others in turn, i.e., one ‘low wages suppress demand’ and ‘suppressed employment’. This formed a vicious circle, since with suppressed and stagnant wages; people tend to go for debt creation, which became fodder for the banks, again augmenting the power of the already powerful. As per the UN findings, an inequality of a nation increases, its economic growth and stability decreases. The ideas which are integral part of neoliberal government to lower their deficits and strengthen their economies are counter-productive. For example the reduction of UK’s top rate of income tax, to new 45% from 50%, would not increase government income but would simply enrich speculators driving the economy. The reforms in the welfare bills in accordance with neo-liberalism would nor stimulate employment or clear the deficit. These new policies would only reduce demand and eventually suppressing economic recovery. As the UN said “relearning some old lessons about fairness and participation is the only way to eventually overcome the crisis and pursue a path of sustainable economic development.” The world has learned its lessons of applying neo-liberalism governance in the US, Europe and Britain. (Monbiot, 2016)
As we perceive, neo-liberalism have taken over globalisation as the illustrative term for modern forms of economic reform. By the implication of neo-liberalism, it now understood that it would open gates for global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, multinational corporations. Undeniably, every now and then the two terms were associated through the expression ‘neoliberal globalisation’. The name ‘neoliberal globalisation’ makes apparent attempts to conceptualise international restructuring as a political project and to identify the actors involved. However, neoliberal is still implicit as a colossal project originating from the United States and the United Kingdom. The dissimilarity between methods such as mercerisation, deregulation and privatisation was never opined. It is believed that neo-liberalism would eventually lead to destruction of democratic fabric of society and would surely lead to higher sociospatial polarisation.
As we have discussed the neo-liberalism and its consequences, this ideology ensures changes at government, global as well as individual levels. This will include abolishment of the welfare state; encourage global inequality and the individualization of everything. Even though it has so many negative results but in the coming future this ideology is our only way to attain social and economic order worldwide. (George, 1999). Slowly this so called ‘doxa’ is truly becoming an unquestioned reality. It is becoming logical that markets should take charge of resource allocation, global competition should be used to motivate growth and societies should be driven to attain economic upliftment. Against all the resistance this ideology is soon going to be the face of the government, to govern would literally means to rule over, this time by the rulers with wealth and power alike. The intensity is marketed in the global political platform; soon the governance would become synonymous to neo-liberalism.