Vincent Geloso has an interesting piece at the AIER website, arguing that “the use of the term “neoliberalism” is strongly correlated with punditry”. I think that is very true. Neoliberalism is, at the same time, a term of abuse and a sort of way to refer to what someone finds more or less vaguely dislikable about the status quo. In a book (in Italian, alas) that uses the term, I distinguished between neoliberalism “in a proper sense” and neoliberalism “in a broad sense”. If you try to take neoliberalism seriously and to define it properly, you cannot escape the fact that “neoliberals” (such as German Ordoliberals) were actually trying to amend, sweeten, soften 19th-century classical liberalism.
In the common discourse, particularly but not only among left-wingers (I suspect perhaps the most vocal critics of neoliberalism are, today, right-wing nationalists), the assumption is that actually the opposite is true: neoliberalism is classical liberalism on steroids, a semi-anarchistic ideology which has swiped away the “rights” of workers in modern social democracies and the welfare state altogether. Geloso rightly reminds us that you can use the word “neoliberalism” and be serious about it. I am a bit surprised that he does not mention Michel Foucault, who, with his The Birth of Biopolitics, is the Godfather of all contemporary neoliberalism-bashers, albeit with a depth of thought that is on an altogether different level.
The problem with “neoliberalism in a broad sense”, with this narrative of deregulation and unfettered competition destroying all the “conquests” of one century of successful taming of the capitalist beast, is that there is limited empirical evidence of it. On this point, like David Henderson, I can’t but warmly recommend this piece by Russ Roberts, on a variation on the neoliberal rant: the bizarre view by which Milton Friedmanesque ideologues ruled and rule the world. Writes Roberts that “it is absurd to think that somehow Friedman’s free-market ideology triumphed and the time has come to roll back his policies. Most of them have never been tried.” Read the whole thing, it is really worth your time.
READER COMMENTS
Thaomas
Feb 21 2020 at 7:19am
I think the issue is that “neoliberalism” got blamed for a lot of stuff that have nothing to do with neoliberalism like austerity when the economy is not at full employment, tax “reform” sold as increasing efficiency that in fact just increases deficits and transfers income up the distribution, and “deregulating” in ways that don’t compensate beneficiaries of the old inefficient regulation. Real neoliberalism is increasing market efficiency without negative income distribution effects.
Mark Z
Feb 21 2020 at 3:24pm
”Neoliberalism is, at the same time, a term of abuse and a sort of way to refer to what someone finds more or less vaguely dislikable about the status quo.”
I really like this pithy summation of ‘anti-neoliberalism.’ Critics usually don’t seem interested or even able to show how deregulating the telecom or airline industry caused the opioid crisis, so we’re left with vague dissatisfaction with the status quo, which is just assumed to uniformly resemble a Randian hellscape.
Thomas B
Feb 21 2020 at 5:36pm
I have tended to assume that “neoliberal” was a quite conscious attempt, on the left, to associate liberalism with naziism, since the latter was previously the only political view to which “neo” was widely added. So, by association, if “neo-nazi” is vile, then “neo-liberal” must be vile too. One doesn’t hear social democrats referred to as “neo-communists” or even “neo-socialists”, although presumably that would be a valid labeling.
Nodnarb the Nasty
Feb 22 2020 at 12:40am
Isn’t AIER the one that employs people who were involved in Ron Paul’s racist newsletters?
If so, I don’t want anything to do with it. I hope other people will take a principled stand against racism in the libertarian movement, too.
Mark Brady
Feb 23 2020 at 2:16pm
Yes, I strongly recommend that my classical liberal friends disassociate themselves from the term neoliberalism. That said, sometimes it is the proponents of free markets who identify as neoliberals. For example, the Adam Smith Institute informs visitors to its website, “Independent, non-profit and non-partisan, we work to promote free market, neoliberal ideas through research, publishing, media outreach, and education. The Institute is today at the forefront of making the case for free markets and a free society in the United Kingdom.” (Emphasis added.)
Comments are closed.