1. This literature has focused overwhelmingly on two aspects
of the neoliberal period: the economic consequences of neo-
liberal reform in the global south, and the formation of new
kinds of subjectivities, both market-ready entrepreneurs and
the alternative cultural and indigenous categories that have
been produced by these new strategies of government (see
Hale 2006; Shever 2008; Colloredo-Mansfield 1998). The lit -
erature is by turns bleak about the economic prospects for
much of the world’s population (e.g., Gill 2000; Gledhill
1995) or sanguine about the possibilities opened up by con-
testatory practices (e.g., Postero 2007; Sawyer 2004).
2. Joseph Stiglitz (1998) began using the term “post–Washington
Consensus” in 1998, a sign that mainstream international
de velopment practitioners were entering a period of auto-
critique. In Latin America, Taylor (1999) and Hershberg and
Rosen (2006) have used “post-neoliberalism” as a lens for ex-
ploring current economic and political conditions. An alter-
native reading is that provided by Peck and Tickell (2002; also
Hart 2002), which suggests that neoliberalism has not really
ended, but can be divided into two phases, a “roll-back” phase
of drastic cuts to public spending, and a “roll-out” phase in
which policy and public spending is aimed at reconfiguring
state institutions. Although I don’t use the same language, it
should be clear from the pages ahead that I largely agree with
this latter view.
3. Figures are from the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia
agricultural census of 2006. This was the first census to be un-
dertaken in Paraguay since 1991, and the figures are striking
Previous Page Next Page