Some people will be surprised to read this. But yes, the narratives on austerity and poverty reduction do exactly what was expected from them. Most people believe them and protest when the promises are not met.

But we should wonder if these promises are real promises? Or just a way of distracting the attention away from the real goals of the policies that are put in place.

Take austerity. They are said to be necessary to achieve balanced budgets, to reduce public debt so that finally growth and employment will be possible. And this promise is not met. It cannot be met. And those who produce this narrative know this perfectly well. Austerity policies are part of the neoliberal programme to reform the state and to introduce a new social paradigm, away from trade unions and welfare states but focused on poverty reduction. Neoliberalism, we should never forget, is not about weakening states, but about reforming the state and making it strong within a limited scope. And this is happening, so yes, the real goals of austerity are met. Add to this the growing influence of multinational corporations – through lobbying and international trade and investment agreements – and we see the emergence of ‘captured states’ whose goal is no longer to care for the welfare of their people, but to help and promote its ‘corporate citizens’.

The same is true for the whole poverty reduction narrative. Analyzing it in detail and since the beginning – the World Bank in 1990 – one discovers it has nothing to do with poverty or with the poor. It was about strengthening the macro-economic and institutional reform, and about doing away with welfare states, public social services and social insurance. As always, and as has been stated by various scholars in the recent and non recent past, anti-poverty policies never aim in the first place to help poor people. They have other objectives, such as economic programmes, or political legitimacy. Poverty reduction was the social label on Washington Consensus policies. They gave the neoliberal globalization a human face. And after all, the most pressing problem is not poverty but inequality.

What does this mean? First of all, that we should be very cautious with new narratives and analyze them carefully before we criticize them. Their message may be different from what it looks like at first glance. And we should never forget that every political message that seeks hegemony – as neoliberalism does – also needs good promises – poverty reduction, employment … - so that it is easily accepted by people. By the time people discover the promises are not met, the hegemony may have been achieved.

Of course it remains important to deconstruct the narratives, to show why and how they are biased, as I have done last month by showing the unreliability of poverty statistics, and as is done in the latest contribution on the website of Global Social Justice.

It is therefore important to also carefully analyze the new discourse on ‘social protection’, because indeed, this is not necessarily about social protection but might become an improved version of poverty reduction. At the service of markets. Discovering what discourses are about can help to organise resistance, in a timely manner. It means we do not have to wait till, in about five or ten years, we might discover that ‘social protection’ is not social protection. We already know the risks, and we should react to them.

Neoliberalism is very good in changing the meaning of words. In calling ‘poverty reduction’ what is changing a social paradigm. In calling ‘social protection’ a failed poverty reduction policy, in calling ‘participation’ or ‘social innovation’ the demise of welfare states.

We know it. It is nothing new. But we should act upon it.