Neoliberalism

Oh no, they're talking about Politics

Theory

Political spectrum Political party Government (forms of)

Practice

International relations Propaganda War

Philosophies

Elitism Political philosophy Cornucopian vs. Malthusian debate

Terms

Perennial candidate Ad hoc Scramble for Africa

As usual

Black chamber Bread and circuses Hans Blix

Country sections

v - t - e

In a global context: Liberalism

Ideological roots

Age of Enlightenment Free trade Republic Rights (Human rights) Freedom of speech Freedom of religion Liberty and Equality Free market Democracy

Types

Classical liberalism Radicalism Libertarianism‎ Neoliberalism Conservative liberalism Fiscal conservatism Social liberalism Modern liberalism Liberal feminism Civic nationalism

Political parties

Liberal party Democratic-Republican Party The New Liberals

Adjacent ideologies

Liberal conservatism Liberal socialism Centrism (In Europe) v - t - e

Neoliberalism advocates a deregulated, capitalist, globalist market economy, reifies individual greed, and markets a watered-down version of Austrian economics to left-liberals. This ideology manifests as a hybrid between right-and-left liberalism, where the social ideals of left-liberals (particularly, social equality) is attacked via economics and a worldview that views people as only making choices for themselves.^[2] Among the original, enthusiastic proponents of neoliberalism were figureheads of the Austrian school of economics, such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Another neoliberal figurehead included fellow Austrian exile Karl Popper.^[3] Neoliberals sometimes appear similar to left-liberals, especially when they tout their social liberalism to promote their reactionary economic agenda. But like American conservatism, neoliberalism developed partially as a negative reaction to social welfare programs contained in Roosevelt’s New Deal.^[4][5]

Neoliberal theory was originally created by Alexander Rüstow, a "like-mind" to Hayek, in 1938.^[6] This original neoliberal theory was an attempt to sell laissez-faire capitalism to advocates of a welfare state and laid the foundation of Ordoliberalism.

Economic neoliberalism-in-action (on a mass scale) partially started with neoliberals selling monetarism to left-leaning governments in the 1970s.^[7] This, along with a neoliberal advocation of union busting,^[8] was a response among "free market thinkers" to economic woes in the 1970s, including inflation in the USA.^[9] Nowadays, self-identified "neoliberals" outside academia tend to be right-libertarian think tanks trying to rebrand like the Adam Smith Institute, or small-government Democrats feeling the need to "take on the enemies labeling" after being called 'neoliberal' by progressives (for example, the "Neoliberal Podcast"). Self-described neoliberals and fellow travelers tend to defend the status quo, whether it be in academia, politics, or finance.^[10][11]

Economic neoliberalism[edit]

Economic neoliberalism typically refers to "free market" economics, though not in the 19^th-century sense of an economy which was free from wasteful "economic rent" (such as literal property rents, monopoly privileges, and financial speculation), but rather in a new and Orwellian sense of an economy in which rich people are free to maximize economic rents and the concept of economic rent itself is denied ('no good or bad money', regardless of whether it comes from cheaply vaccinating children or trafficking heroin, etc). After the fall of the Soviet Union, the new definition was embraced by ex-communists and ex-social democrats alike.

Economist Milton Friedman is seen as a neoliberal, but he is also sometimes coupled with brutal authoritarianism. Former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is an example of the kind of monster who would literally kill for the free market. Other proponents include (or have included) Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

The word liberal in Neoliberalism refers to the liberalization or easing of labor and trade laws meant to reduce regulations which are seen as counterproductive. Formerly, it was considered a good idea for "shock therapy" after a state came out of a command economy, but the results have been less than encouraging.^{[note 1]}

Neoliberalism portrays political decisions like free trade and economic globalization as inevitable forces of nature, like the weather, rather than the work of human agency. George Monbiot writes that "So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognize it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power."^[12]

Monetarism[edit]

Monetarism is the belief that the money supply itself regulates inflation and economic growth, and that developed countries who tighten their budgets benefit during times of economic distress. Believers in monetarism are known for scaremongering about "money printing".

While neoliberalism arguably became popular partially due to charismatic monetarists in the 1970s, monetarism and neoliberalism are theoretically separate and overlapping. One can be a neoliberal and not a monetarist, but popular neoliberal thinkers tend to be monetarists. Additionally, "neoliberal" political programs also tend to involve "money tightening" using monetarism as a justification.^[13]

Historical development in the United States[edit]

The most important value in neoliberal planning was alleged empiricism. Outcomes needed to be presented as measurable, and measured, to provide a scientific veneer to watered down Austrian economics. This emphasis on presenting measurable results while politicking created a symbiosis between neoliberals and some technocrats.

Under the Jimmy Carter administration, many neoliberals were given a chance to put their ideas into practice. What this meant was deregulation of the economy. Many economists were brought in for their purported technical expertise, such as Paul Volcker, who was appointed as the chairmand of the Fed and Alfred E. Kahn, who claimed that "the superiority of open markets… lies in the fact that the optimum outcome cannot be predicted",^[14] an argument that is similar to Friedrich Hayek's famous paper The Use of Knowledge in Society. Under Carter's government, many pieces of deregulation passed, such as the National Gas Policy Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, and, more famously, the Airline Deregulation Act. There were many nominal and real successes of globalist free-market capitalism, with overall economic growth in US and many other countries as well.^[15]

Prominent neoliberals like Robert Rubin acknowledge neoliberalism's issue with creating income inequality within developed countries. Many traditional liberals worry that the increasing gap between the lower class and the mega-rich is undermining democracy as we know it. This reflects the prediction of James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution', that "We are free today substantially but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few." He then went on to say that we must then rely on the "best elements in society" to readjust the laws of the country to the changed conditions.

The other major criticism of domestic neoliberals is their support for free trade. Many people on all sides of the political spectrum (in every country) worry about the effects of free trade on everything from wages to sovereignty, even though almost every economist on the left and on the right agree that protectionism has a negative effect on welfare and on the economy as a whole.^[16][17]

Modern politicians[edit]

Many, if not most, modern American politicians have been criticized as neoliberal by anti-neoliberals, including both prominent Republicans and Democrats.

Despite neoliberalism being a common ideology in Republican Party circles, prominent elected Republicans such as Dick Cheney and Donald Trump have vocally eschewed large portions of neoliberalism. Both vocally advocated against monetarism, rejected the idea that America can default on its debt, and spoke of little concern for "balanced budgets". While some have characterized Trump as neoliberal, most journalists seem to portray Trump as an anti-neoliberal. One reason for this is Trump's repeated attacks on international free trade. On the other hand, Trump was seen by many Republican neoliberals as an inspirational example of Hayek's "independent", ie a beneficiary of inherited wealth whose lack of concern for conventional morality could steer America into new paths.

Modern Democratic figures such as Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton have all been criticized as neoliberal due to their support for free trade agreements, their promotion of a selfish technocracy, and their interest in preserving private enterprise in essential needs like health insurance and housing.

Other modern, domestic neoliberals in the United States include Michael Kinsley and Michael Bloomberg.

Self-described neoliberal organizations[edit]

The right-wing-libertarian Adam Smith Institute has branded itself as neoliberal, previously describing themselves as "Libertarian". It defines neoliberalism partly as people who believe that mainstream politics/society/academia etc is actually the best it has ever been.^[18]

The Neoliberal Podcast is a podcast run by self-described "moderate democrats" who oppose what they call the Bernie/AOC wing of the Democratic Party, who they fear have an increasingly outsized influence in Democratic Party politics. Guests of their podcast include Vox writers, members of Clinton's political entourage, Washington DC policy wonks (for example, members of the "Progressive" Policy Institute), and Democratic Congressmen.^[19]

The Neoliberal Project is a neoliberal political advocacy group which holds local chapter meetings.^[20]

International relations neoliberalism[edit]

In the academic field of international relations, neoliberalism refers to a school most closely associated with Harvard and Princeton universities. The neoliberal school of International relations (IR) arose in the 1970s as a response to the hegemony of the "realism" school. Both neorealists and neoliberalists in IR believe that individual states are egoists which seek to advance self-interests primarily.^[21]

In IR, "liberalism" refers to the orientation of Woodrow Wilson and other people who hoped to reshape the world through the use of war and international organizations. The goal of the early liberals was democratization and an end to war. Neoliberals took these same goals but rejected the unscientific applications that had come before. Instead, neoliberals decided to apply rigorous mathematical and scientific techniques.

Most neoliberal analyses relied heavily on rational choice and game theoretic models borrowed extensively from neoclassical supply-side economics. (The main thing tying both domestic neoliberalism and international neoliberalism is the heavy reliance on axiomatic economics.) Neoliberals today believe that by tying states together in institutions, it can decrease the signal noise that prevents communication between them and can increase the costs associated with provocation and aggression.

The best formulation of neoliberal hopes can be found in the "democratic peace" theory. According to this, no two mature democracies have ever fought a war against each other. Therefore, promoting liberal democracy around the world will have the side-effect of decreasing war. Since a vibrant middle class has long been recognized as a necessary condition for liberal democracy, neoliberals have focused on helping nations choose policies that would promote the creation of middle classes and democracy.

Criticism[edit]

Criticism of neoliberalism often comes from history, politics, economics, and political economy. Realists often claim that because neoliberals ignore power, they are fooling themselves as to what usually causes war and struggle. They do, however, acknowledge that neoliberal claims and predictions can be seen to have come true in some cases. Constructivists claim that neoliberals are ignoring the structure behind the norms they espouse, pointing to China as an example of a country that can follow the trade advice of the neoliberals without following their economic or political advice by privatizing its state-owned enterprises (SOEs) or democratizing.

Social inequality and decreased community cohesion[edit]

Critics of neoliberalism typically claim that inequality increased around the globe since Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan ushered an era of global privatization and deregulation. They argue that capitalism does not in fact increase the economic prospects of the (very) poorest in the world, that hyper-individualism is destroying our social fabric, and that business deregulation creates economic inequality. Critics of economic inequality argue it causes social atomization through a wide living disparity between individual people, families, neighbors, and neighborhoods within a locality. However, the period between 1988 and 2008 might have witnessed the first decline in global inequality between world citizens since the Industrial Revolution, with mean incomes between countries converging.^[22][23] However, inequality within countries has also been rising.^[24]

Neoliberalism has been found to reduce well being through increased competition, social disconnection, and loneliness (aka "decreased community cohesion"). While it has been argued that neoliberalism promoted well being because of its perceived emphasis on growth and personal responsibility, it can be equally argued that neoliberalism decreased well being through its "ideological promotion of competition" which therefore brings about subversive effects on "people's sense" of solidarity and social security.^[25]

Likewise, the rise of populism has been linked to economic insecurity brought about by neoliberal policies across the world. Neoliberalism has been linked to social decohesion and "increased outgroup derogation," this sentiment is primarily directed at the top ("the elites") and not against marginalized social groups. This resentment is mediated through a "sense of anomie and negative psychological interaction ((feelings of threat, unfairness, and hopelessness)."^[26]

A study using "General Social Survey data from 1972 to 2008" found that Americans were broadly more happy during years with less income inequality than during years with more income inequality.^[27]

Neoliberalism has been directly accused of being a project to restore class dominance by those "sectors that saw their fortunes threatened by the ascent of social democratic endeavors in the aftermath of the Second World War."^[28] Likewise, Harvey (2007) found that neoliberalism has primarily led to a funneling of wealth "from subordinate classes to dominant ones and from poorer to richer countries."^[28] This process of what Harvey (2007) calls "creative destruction" entailed the dissolution of institutions and narratives that promoted more "egalitarian distributive measures in the preceding era."^[28]

Basic resource insecurity and inaccessibility[edit]

Neoliberalism is also criticized as leaving the price of basic resources (housing, healthcare, etc.) to monopolists and/or the market. Opponents of neoliberalism argue that the "free capitalist market" has no interest in guaranteeing basic human needs, and instead will only offer such goods/services at extortionate costs to buyers. Despite successes of neoliberalism, with overall wealth increasing in many segments of society, basic resource insecurity (outside processed food) in the USA is high. And the percentage of grown adults who are geographically independent of their immediate families has been decreasing since the 1980s in the USA, with the exception of a brief reversal of course during the private debt mania of the dot-com boom.^[29]

Public housing gutting[edit]

Public housing (also known as "HUD housing") in the USA was broadly expanded under FDR and this left the USA almost free from involuntary homelessness until the mid-1970s, when Nixon ordered a memoratorium on public housing during a period of rising crime across the entire country. Nixon was not alone in this hostility however. Virtually every presidential administration after LBJ has attempted to gut or privatize American public housing.

During 1976, President Jimmy Carter’s HUD secretary, Patricia Harris, was extremely hostile to new units of traditional public housing, stating, "We should make it clear that we are abandoning the whole notion of public housing".^[30] While Harris limited new development of traditional public housing,^[31] she also sought to expand Section 8 and keep existing traditional public housing from falling apart, often in defiance of Carter's budget tightening. Carter and his Welfare Secretary were both more hostile than Harris to public housing, proposing a complete elimination in favor of Nixon's version of a UBI, which Harris pushed against.^[32]

In the early 1980s, Reagan's administration made enormous cuts to HUD, making the availability of Section 8 vouchers (previously Section 23 vouchers and now known as HCV vouchers) something of a rarity across the United States. Reagan had halved the entire budget for both Section 8 and traditional public housing.^[33] This dramatically increased homelessness. Much of Reagan's cuts to public housing were more aggressive versions of Carter's proposed "triage" approach to defunding public housing. Carter had proposed this in his National Agenda for the 1980s.^[32]

In 1999, Bill Clinton signed into law a ban on new public housing units beyond the amount present in 1999.^[34] This major piece of psychopathic neoliberal legislation was done with Republican and Democratic support. It is called the "Faircloth amendment" and directly amends the New Deal era law which effectively created public housing in the USA. Clinton was also supportive of the HOPE VI program, which further reduced public housing stock. HOPE VI sought to replace public housing stock with public/private hybrid "revitalized affordable housing". Less than 60% of HOPE VI housing had affordability levels equivalent to public housing. Prior public housing tenants were also excluded from HOPE VI for other reasons, including through work requirement and credit score means testing. At least 75% of affected public housing residents were immediately displaced by the HOPE VI program. Hope VI had also demolished more affordable housing units than it had built by a factor of almost 200%.^[35]

President Obama and the Obama administration sought to raise the minimum rent of the poorest in public housing.^[36] This was eventually rejected in the Senate thanks to Barney Frank and Maxine Waters. The Obama adminstration also attempted to privatize what little public housing is left in the USA through PETRA. This scheme was supported by then HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and was intended to sell off public housing to banks, who could use complex mortgage schemes to finance public housing through the private market. If passed, this would have also allowed banks to seize public housing wholesale and further limit access.

During 2017, President Trump signed an executive order urging public housing authorities to enforce work requirements,^[37] and the Trump administration attempted to cut funding to HUD (which administers and funds American public housing).^[38] Trump also bragged about moving public housing out of suburban areas.

During 2021, Democrat Maxine Waters introduced H.R. 4496, a sweeping bill to fully fund HCV vouchers to everyone who needs them. She introduced this bill when Democrats had a majority in the House and Senate, and also held the presidency. However, only 1/3rd of House Democrats were co-sponsors on the bill (and 0 Republic consponsors),^[39] and no one in Congress seemed to lobby particularly hard for a floor vote. This bill was re-introduced again in 2023^[40] as H.R. 4232, with only a quarter of Dems as cosponsors^[41] and again no floor vote was held.

Beyond Waters' public housing re-expansion bill losing Democratic support in Congress, current support for re-expansion among Democratic Party elite is unknown as there are shifting party standard-bearers. Kamala Harris has been involved in supporting what little exists of public housing in America, but along with Biden, avoids the topic of public housing to an unusual degree, even among other Democratic Party elite.^[42] After the rise in homelessness during the Biden administration, small American third parties have capitalized on silence from major parties by explicitly promoting public housing expansion.

Democratic Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has unsuccessfully tried to repeal the Faircloth amendment (which caps public housing units) while her party had a majority in the House and Senate during 2021.^[43] Only 2 of her Democratic colleagues in the House cosponsored her effort, and 0 Republicans.^[44] In total, there is mild to moderate, nominal Democratic support for re-expansion of HCV vouchers. However, even if they got a successful floor vote for re-expansion of HCV vouchers, increased public housing stock is needed in areas where land demand or public housing stigma among landlords is high for such a public housing expansion to virtually eliminate homelessness and housing insecurity.

Adequate healthcare insecurity and inaccessibility[edit]

The US healthcare industry was heavily privatized in the 1980s under the Reagan administration.^[45]

The Reagan administration was not oblivious to the negatives of privatization. They once notably tried to offset some of the social insecurities of lack of healthcare access by forcing emergency rooms in the USA to accept patients priced out from the healthcare market.^[46] Millions of Americans who do not know about Medicaid, who have health problems (or entire body parts) not covered by Medicaid, or who are experiencing the churning from Obamacare, (a set of policies also criticized as neoliberal^[47]) now seek healthcare primarily through emergency room visits or charity setups.

Today's adult generations in the USA, Generation X and later, born post-1965 (the first generations to experience their teens and young adulthood during a neoliberal era), are projected to experience more years of ill health than the prior "baby boomer" generation.^[48] The current young adult and middle-aged adult generations in the US also projects they will not live as long as the current adult senior generation in the US.^[49]

The effects of neoliberalism has been linked to declining mental health rates.^[50] To quote Zeira (2022):

Neoliberal capitalism incorporates theories of eliminating all restrictions on the market and decreasing government assistance programs as reported by Harvey [A brief history of neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, 2005]. Since then these policies have led to income inequality, disempowerment of workers, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, inadequate social services, mass incarceration and an expensive and ineffective healthcare system as reported by Case and Deaton [Deaths of despair and the future of capitalism. Princeton University Press, 2020] and Nkansah-Amankra et al. [International Journal of Health Services 43(2):217-240, 2013]. Studies have shown that the consequences of these policies and ideologies likely have a role in increasing rates of mental illness. This paper will discuss how these factors increase mental distress and postulate ways that mental health professionals can advocate for change.^[50]

Neoliberalism (specifically how it relates to consumer financial debt and the insidious linking of debt to personal failure) has also been linked to negative effects on physical health, this includes "blood pressure, adiposity, self-reported physical and emotional symptoms, depression, anxiety, and perceived stress, even when controlling for several socio-demographic confounders."^[51] Sweet (2018) discusses these results "within the context of both neoliberal economic policies that funnel consumers into chronic debt and neoliberal sociocultural ideologies that promote self-judgments of indebtedness as personal failure."^[51]

Capitalist globalism and slavery of Third World peoples[edit]

Neoliberalism in IR is often inextricably linked to neoliberalism in economics. A central tenant of economic neoliberalism is that global cooperation and expansion of capitalist market economies will unleash a river of prosperity to Third World countries and First World countries alike to due to increased market efficiency. Critics of neoliberal globalization say the utopian-sounding marketing of globalization is a cover for something else — namely, providing further practical opportunity for wealthy interests around the globe to enter and enslave poor countries to produce raw materials for them.^[52] Critics point to increases in slavery found when Africans provided raw materials to Europe via the Colombian exchange, for example.^[53]

While neoliberals say capitalist globalization increases the living standards of developing countries, critics claim this does not apply to the poorest countries, which they point out, lose economic growth from capitalist globalization.^[54] Empirical evidence shows, however, that poor countries tend to catch up with rich countries if the poor countries have high human capital per person (in relation to their level of per capita GDP), but not otherwise,^[55] and developing countries are set to account for nearly 60% of world GDP by 2030, with trade being one of the main factors behind this growth.^[56] However, as stated above, inequality within countries has also risen just as inequality between countries has declined.^[24]

There has been criticism of neoliberals prioritizing economic measurements like growth and inflation to measure the quality of life over social factors like labor rights^[57] and broad access to tertiary education.^[58]:227-248 The criticism regarding labor is that neoliberalism has eroded worker's rights worldwide and has also led to an erosion of the power of organized labor at a national level.^[57] However, the neoliberal era has also brought about a transnational alliance of labor solidarity between worker movements in the US and elsewhere (some of the cited examples include links between labor in the States and the Honduran CGT or the Bridgestone-Firestone workers in Liberia) or the involvement of Brazilian labor activists in European labor campaigning.^[57] Some other criticisms is that prioritizing economic efficiency can compromise other factors or perhaps even promote factors such as exploitation or social injustice.^[59]:617

Vocal, individual critics[edit]

Prominent critics of neoliberalism include the linguist Noam Chomsky (who often focuses on neoliberalism's imposition on poorer countries by the IMF and others in the form of the "Washington Consensus"), the philosopher Slavoj Žižek, the environmentalist George Monbiot, and the left-wing commentator Paul Mason. More modern critics of neoliberalism include the Modern Monetary Theory school of economics, which includes Bernie Sanders' former economic advisor Stephanie Kelton, and Glen Weyl, a former Ayn Rand fan who seeks to take the best neoliberal ideas and discard the worst ones, and to combine ideas from the left and right in radical new ways.

Other vocal critics of neoliberalism include:

External links[edit]

• George Monbiot, Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems. The Guardian, Apr. 15, 2016

Notes[edit]

References[edit]