{"id":91660,"date":"2026-04-18T07:11:42","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T06:11:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=91660"},"modified":"2026-04-18T07:11:42","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T06:11:42","slug":"economic-questions-the-naomi-klein-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2026\/04\/18\/economic-questions-the-naomi-klein-question\/","title":{"rendered":"Economic questions: the Naomi Klein question"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is one of a series of posts that will ask what the most pertinent question raised by a prominent influencer of political economy<\/a>\u00a0might 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\u00a0origin of this series is noted here.<\/a>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

Why is Naomi Klein <\/a>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<\/span>. It was an idea I brought to my work on tax justice, especially after the 2008 global financial crisis.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Naomi Klein<\/a>\u00a0is best known for her book,\u00a0The Shock Doctrine<\/a>, 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.\u00a0These policies often include privatisation, deregulation, and cuts to public services.<\/em><\/p>\n

Klein\u2019s insight is not that crises are fabricated, but that they are exploited<\/span>. 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

This reframes how we understand economic change. It is not only the result of ideas or markets, but of timing, power and opportunity. Hence<\/em>, the<\/span> Naomi Klein Question:\u00a0<\/b><\/b>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?<\/strong><\/em><\/i><\/p>\n

\n

Shock as a political strategy<\/b><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Shock, in this sense, becomes a mechanism for implementing controversial changes.<\/p>\n

Crisis and neoliberal reform<\/b><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The crisis becomes a turning point, but not necessarily in a direction that serves the broader population.<\/p>\n

Disaster capitalism<\/b><\/p>\n

Klein introduced the concept of disaster capitalism<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Crises do, as a result, become the reason for accumulation as well as disruption.<\/p>\n

The narrowing of democratic choice<\/b><\/p>\n

One of Klein\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Klein\u2019s analysis suggests that democracy is most vulnerable precisely when it is most needed.<\/p>\n

Climate crisis and competing visions<\/b><\/p>\n

Klein\u2019s later work, including This Changes Everything<\/i><\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

The direction taken depends on political decisions, not on the crisis itself.<\/p>\n

What answering the Naomi Klein Question would require<\/b><\/p>\n

Taking Klein\u2019s insights seriously would require a different approach to crises and policymaking. At minimum, this would involve:<\/p>\n