I don't think that an associate professor of law is the first person I'd quote when talking about economics. Especially when the person is a complete and total ideologue:Here's a different take on the New Zealand "success": New Zealand "experiment" a colossal failure - Jane Kelsey
The cultural deficit
Within a decade, the country and the lives of its people were turned upside down. This right-wing revolution--bloodless, but devastating for those who became its victims--had been prosecuted in the name of "the nation as a whole." Constant references to national wealth, national well-being, and national self-interest sought to submerge deep inequalities into an amorphous whole. Along the way, the nation in whose name the experiment was carried out was irreversibly changed, raising vital concerns about identity, sovereignty, and foreign control.
The ethos of the market pervaded everyday life. Even the language was captured, dehumanizing the people and communities it affected. It became acceptable to talk of "shedding workers," as if they were so much dead skin. "Incentives" meant cutting benefits to force people into low-paying jobs. "Broadening the tax base" meant shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor. "Freeing up the market" meant removing all impediments to profit-making. "Deinstitutionalization" meant closing state institutions and shifting responsibility for their occupants to poor families and communities. "An open economy" meant welcoming foreign purchasers of the country's assets and resources. "International competitiveness" meant competing with countries whose economies are based on prison and child labour, grinding poverty, and environmental degradation.
That is not the language of an objective critic of policies.