Economic questions: the Naomi Klein question

Posted on April 18 2026

This is one of a series of posts that will ask what the most pertinent question raised by a prominent influencer of political economy might have been, and what the relevance of that question might be today. There is a list of all posts in the series at the end of each entry. The origin of this series is noted here.

This series has been produced using what I describe as directed AI searches to establish positions with which I agree, followed by final editing before publication.

Why is Naomi Klein in this series? That is because her work exposed that crises are not only economic or environmental events, but also political opportunities, or moments when power can be used either to protect the public or to entrench inequality. Her work forces political economy to confront the relationship between shock, power and policy. It was an idea I brought to my work on tax justice, especially after the 2008 global financial crisis.

Naomi Klein is best known for her book, The Shock Doctrine, published in 2007, in which she argued that economic and political elites have repeatedly used moments of crisis, whether wars, natural disasters, or financial collapses, to implement policies that would otherwise face strong public resistance. These policies often include privatisation, deregulation, and cuts to public services.

Klein's insight is not that crises are fabricated, but that they are exploited. When societies are disoriented and vulnerable, the range of acceptable policy choices narrows. Decisions that reshape economies can be pushed through quickly, often without democratic scrutiny.

This reframes how we understand economic change. It is not only the result of ideas or markets, but of timing, power and opportunity. Hence, the Naomi Klein Question: If crises are repeatedly used to advance policies that concentrate wealth and power, why do we continue to treat them as moments of necessity rather than as moments of political choice?

Shock as a political strategy

Naomi Klein argues that shocks created by sudden, destabilising events create conditions in which normal political processes are suspended. In these moments, governments and institutions can act rapidly, often claiming that there is no alternative.

Policies introduced under these conditions are frequently justified as emergency measures, as happened, for example, during the Covid crisis in 2020. Yet they can have long-lasting effects, reshaping ownership structures, labour markets and public services.

Shock, in this sense, becomes a mechanism for implementing controversial changes.

Crisis and neoliberal reform

Klein has traced how economic crises have been used to advance neoliberal policies worldwide. Structural adjustment programmes, privatisation of state assets, and reductions in social spending have often followed financial crises or political upheaval.

These measures are presented as necessary to restore stability. However, Klein argues that they often deepen inequality and weaken public institutions, benefiting those who are already powerful.

The crisis becomes a turning point, but not necessarily in a direction that serves the broader population.

Disaster capitalism

Klein introduced the concept of disaster capitalism to describe situations where private actors profit directly from crises. Reconstruction contracts, security services, and privatised public functions can generate significant profits in the aftermath of disasters.

This creates incentives for the expansion of private involvement in areas traditionally managed by the public sector. Over time, the boundary between public responsibility and private opportunity becomes blurred as a result.

Crises do, as a result, become the reason for accumulation as well as disruption.

The narrowing of democratic choice

One of Klein's central concerns has been the impact of crisis-driven policy on democracy. When decisions are made quickly under conditions of shock, there is limited opportunity for public debate or accountability.

Policies that might be contested in normal circumstances can be presented as unavoidable. This reduces the space for alternative approaches and concentrates decision-making power in a small number of actors.

Klein's analysis suggests that democracy is most vulnerable precisely when it is most needed.

Climate crisis and competing visions

Klein's later work, including This Changes Everything, extended her analysis to climate change. She argued that the climate crisis presents a similar moment of choice to any other crisis: it can be used to justify further concentration of power and profit, or it can become an opportunity for transformative change toward sustainability and equity.

The direction taken depends on political decisions, not on the crisis itself.

What answering the Naomi Klein Question would require

Taking Klein's insights seriously would require a different approach to crises and policymaking. At minimum, this would involve:

Recognising crises as moments of political choice, not inevitability.
Ensuring democratic oversight, even and especially during emergencies.
Protecting public assets and services, rather than using crises to justify their transfer to private actors.
Designing responses that prioritise social and environmental wellbeing, rather than short-term financial interests.
Building institutional resilience so that societies are less vulnerable to opportunistic policy shifts during shocks.

These measures would not prevent crises, but they would shape how societies respond to them.

Inference

The Naomi Klein Question challenges a common narrative in economic policy: that crises leave governments with no choice but to act in certain ways. Klein's work suggests that this narrative obscures the role of power and interest in shaping responses.

Crises do not determine outcomes. They create conditions in which choices are made, often quickly, and often by those best positioned to act.

To answer her question is to recognise that the direction taken in moments of crisis reflects political priorities, and not economic inevitability, meaning that safeguarding democratic decision-making during these moments is essential if those priorities are to reflect the interests of society as a whole.

Previous posts in this series:

PDF of article

Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:

There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.

You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.

And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:

Comments

When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.

6 Responses

John Boxall says:

April 18 2026 at 8:31 am

Looking at Kleins work, an obvious point might be that the greatest improvement in public health in the UK came during WW2

Reply
- Hazel Murphy says:
  
  April 18 2026 at 9:24 am
  
  I love Naomi Klein’s work and saw her speak live. She’s a very original thinker with no axe to grind.
  
  He having studied British social history a lot of the motivation for change came out of the two world wars. There were a number of things that made this happen. In terms of health, a large proportion of men called up for the first world war were in such poor health they couldn’t fight. Secondly there was a mixing of the classes in a way that had never happened before through things like evacuees that forced those of better standing to see how the other half lived and realise something hat to be done. And of course women wee allowed to take on roles they were never allowed to do before and they could not be forced back into a box and ignored.
  
  We only have to look back at the Covid lockdowns to see how a crisis can bring people together. Although with Covid it’s sad how quickly it’s all unraveled again. The only thing retained is the ability to work from home and much more use of remote meetings and an understanding that we don’t have to meet face to face. As someone who lives rurally and is hard of hearing this has been a God send making it much easier for me to attend and follow meetings.
  
  Reply
- Anne S says:
  
  April 18 2026 at 10:42 am
  
  It could be argued that the greatest boost to public health in UK came with public health improvements starting in the Victorian era with sewerage systems, clean piped water, the start of model housing, early regulation of working conditions. I don’t think it contradicts Klein that there are some progressive answers to crises.
  
  Reply
  - Hazel Murphy says:
    
    April 18 2026 at 1:15 pm
    
    I’d totally forgotten that, but totally agree with you. Yet another thing we have gone backwards with. I’m in the South West and so many of our beaches are now unusable because of sewage output. The re-nationalisation of water and resolution of this must be a top priority. Our vital utilities must not be at the mercy of shareholders.
ian greenwood (Civ Engineer) says:

April 19 2026 at 1:44 pm

Can I suggest a new thing – 1/3 Principle OTP from new commercially- created money to the green and public good initially to nearest school from each Eco-Fit project – ringfenced to special literature?

A typical EcoFit for modest “semi” house might cost £40k for ‘enveloping’ much more thoroughly than UK-Gov targets. Including dug-in insulation to foundation strata [planters with suplus backfill covers inert-to-water polystyrene (FR grey)]. With roof double-insulation and walls (sides and rear, at least) and solar-thermal on roof (set-in, tiles set around) that might be as little as £40k and WORK. Then the must-have is Modified Ground-Source (MGS) Summer-Solar heat-store in the existing earth at no extraction cost and WHERE NEEDED MOST (under floors, minimal floor replacement).

All that remains is to get UK-Treasury to understand this (modified EPC ‘plus’ to be seen@bank) and instruct ’20-year money’ at-fixed-rate 1.5.%. Banks still-getting ‘house-price uplift money’ which can be noted from Land Registry figures and the “loans” issued. Rather than banks getting it all a Balanced Capitalism green and public good improvement. On new-build as well at little extra cost. Important for Britain is to use existing buildings and earth as the heat-store, tripling the Sun’s capacity by substantial tank transferring ~ 60kWh from a day or two of sun ’24/7′ for a week!

Solving Prof Mackay’s withoutHotAir.com “how to get the sun’s warmth in fast enough.” Thus beats thermal piles. and less disruption.

Could rapidly grow to new real industry of £20bn-£40bn p.a. A softly way to introduce OTP, then perhaps broaden via “house-price uplift money” (part of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s May 2021 successful suggestion of charge on commercial-bank electronic money also described 2014 on Bank of England as “modern money.” THEN Help local financing via OTP?

Reply
- Richard Murphy says:
  
  April 19 2026 at 2:34 pm
  
  What is OTP?
  
  Without explaioning what you mean I can make no sense of this.
  
  Sorry
  
  Reply

By leaving a comment you consent to your name and email address being stored on the site. We won't spam you or pass it on to anyone else.