Talk:Neoliberalism

just added heading to move TOC to top of page

why does this discussion page look like this? the table of contents should be closer to the top.

please stop changing the opening of the article to say the term was coined by conservative republicans. this is a silly and completely false assertion that only confuses people who want to learn. fved

CALLING ALL WIKI EDITORS HERE!

This term neoliberalism is used FAR too much in all the articles. I have never personally heard it used outside of wikipedia. I do like the term insofar as it seems to highlight a good concept most people never use a specific word for, and in that sense is a good word. However, because of its seemingly non usage in real life, it can be really confusing. It seems that one or a few people have edited many articles to include this term, possibly with a bias. Check the "what pages link here" for a SMALL example, far more uses of the word are non linked.

Err... the term is widely used outside of wikipedia, although I suspect mostly by its enemies rather than neutral parties. However, a quick web search will demonstrate to you that it is indeed a commonly used term to describe the attendant concept, and thus should remain as is. Graft 13:56, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

-- Is the term "neoliberalism" ever used by the neoliberals themselves?

Yes. Many economists describe themselves as "neo-liberal economists". Stirling Newberry 19:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Really? Do you have any references? I have never found from the net any site in English which would describe itself "Neoliberal", and given my interests I would, if there would be many of them. There are a lot of sites criticizing neoliberalism, but none defending it or even representing it. Some of the economists which are called "Neoliberal" describe themselves "liberal", but I haven't yet encountered anyone, who would call himself "neoliberal".--213.243.154.252 10:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have only seen this term used in a critical context, such as "Neoliberal policies only profit the wealthy".

They don't usually call themselves like that. Decision makers and politicians avoid calling themselves anything that would make people thing about structures and ideology. No businessman wil proudly proclaim himself "capitalist" either.

The term "neoliberalism" is not used by its supporters because they do not believe it varies from plain-old liberalism. Its critics are largely anti-capitalists, who think of themselves as being the true liberals. The term also implies a connection to neoconservatism, of which there is none.

In fact, many neo-conservatives are neo-liberals. Stirling Newberry 19:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What? This is like saying that calling people from New-Zealand Neo-Zealanders implies a connection with Neo-Englanders! Of course there is no link between neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.

I think what he was trying to say was that some might assume that, as "liberals" are ideologically opposed to "conservatives", thus related by opposition, "neoliberals" might share a similar relationship with "neoconservatives", when, in fact, they are compatible. --Gsnxn 01:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In refutation to that--if you bothered to read the article, you would find that the term "liberal" does cover political or social liberalism (that is, progressivism) but the liberty that the actual economic system has via Laissez-Faire capitalism. It is possible to be both neo-liberal and neo-conservative, as Neoliberal in this form only really signifies an economic system rather than the conservative social and political we usually equate with Neoconservatism. In short, it is fairly confusing--but don't get too freaked out about it. --UnfathomableJ

I think the problem here is that the term liberal has different meanings depending on the context. In the United States, the word liberal is generally used as a synonym for progressive, and is generally meant in a social context. In Europe (with the notable exception of the Liberal Democrats in Great Britain), the word tends to refer to a movement towards liberalization of markets. This is not a social, but instead an economic concept. Thus, while social liberals are trying to pull down the barriers to gay marriage, women in the workplace, abortion, etc., economic liberals are trying to pull down the barriers to business, free trade, globalization, etc. The problem is that social liberals and economic liberals tend to be entirely different people, although one might argue that, for instance, Bill Clinton represents both types of liberal. --Phil Bastian

This is not entirely true. The term "neo-liberal" is not used by economists to mean the same thing as "liberal" in the classical sense. In fact, many economics will say something along the lines of "economically liberal" or "classically liberal" in order to specifically differentiate this worldview, which is what you describe, from a "neo-liberal" worldview, which does include both economic and social elements. A neo-liberal is someone who believes that the typical concerns of the liberal left--economic equality, etc.--can be furthered best within a free-market system. Please view the American Heritage definition for support of this statement: [1]. It is very difficult to argue successfully that the term "neo-liberal" is misused by Americans, since the term describes an American phenomenon. Western Europe generally uses the term derisively, to refer to American policy in general. In truth, it is a very vague term describing a pattern of economic liberalisation and concurrent social liberalisation in America that has not been seen in Western Europe, where national governments have been much more suspicious of the free markets. This article gives one of the better illustrations of the difficulty inherent in effectively pinning down the "neo-liberal" ideology: [2]. Since the term is used so broadly, and so often used derisively with little justification, I do not think anything more than a short article providing a broad definition is warranted. --AkulaAlfa

Read a textbook on globalisation/western social&economic policy. Neoliberalism is the name for the ideology behind the change away from Keynes vision. Perhaps there is a different term in vouge in the USA (or none at all). --Sansvoix 04:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote critics without any defense from supporters shows bias in the article. I am marking this article as being in dispute.

---

Neoliberals call themselves "libertarians" in the USA, but the use has now spread a bit also in Europe. // Liftarn\

"Libertarian" is not the same thing as a neoliberal. Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy, whereas libertarianism is a socio-political philosophy that happens to include support for free-market economics (which is popular in many circles). Graft 13:56, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's correct. There's confusion since "liberal" means welfare statist in North America but means classical liberal in Europe and usually in Britain, i.e. more neoclassical. The debate on the terms is well laid out in the Disinfopedia article on neoliberalism and neoclassical philosophy which basically says neoliberals and neoconservatives share the neoclassical philosophy and its support for free market economics - libertarians of course do too. The neoliberal, neoconservative, libertarian alliance is therefore driving globalization (the article doesn't say that) although they disagree on many other things. EofT

Agree. Liftarn is from Sweden, where libertarians have for some reason seen wise to hijack the term "neoliberalism" (nyliberalism) from their opponents, but the use of the term "neoliberalism" as a synonym for libertarianism is endemic for Sweden. However, elsewhere "Neolibertarism" is used by the opponents to describe a certain set of economic policies (which don't necessarily have anything in common), whereas libertarinism also strictly defends personal liberty. And the "neoliberal" economic policy, as it is descibed by its opponents, might sometimes include state intervention in the form of regulation, tariffs and subsidies, which are --213.243.154.252 10:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Charles from Japan here. Admittedly, definitions are a can of worms, but I have trouble with the expression "...The neoliberal, neoconservative, libertarian alliance...." If this is a "strategic" alliance on the single point of globalization then perhaps it is intelligible, but I feel it is confusing to say "alliance," which implies a harmony of views on other points. I think it would be useful to keep in mind that certain "isms" exist only in certain spheres. Some "isms" only deal with economics (eg, monitarism) and others only with social issues (although they may have social implications or other "isms" may be mutually supportive). Neoliberalism (in the "European" sense of the word "liberal" -- which M. Friedman noted out in Capitalism and Freedom) and "neoclassical" (as in "neoclassical" economics) and "libertarian" and "von-Misisian" and "Austrian" schools are often used in association with each other. However, I feel the word "neoconservatism" is unique and can or can not be associated with these concepts. A quick glance at the website of the Cato Institute, which I think most people would describe as "libertarian" or "neoliberal" or "Austrian-school," shows it to be extremely critcial of the Iraq War. Meanwhile, neocon bigwig Paul Wolfowitz is now prez of the World Bank. Remember also William Kristol's defintion of a neocon: "A liberal who has been mugged." To me, this implies not "neo" in the sense this prefix is used in "neoliberalism" (i.e., the "new-school" of liberalism - European sense of word) but rather "former" liberal (Kristal uses "liberal" in the American sense of the word) - in short, a liberal who has "flip-flopped" and become an extreme conservative (a la David Horowitz). What do you think?

A solution

One way to make this article useful would be to rename it economic neoliberalism. This would make it clear that we are talking about the fairy tale which tells us that "letting owners of capital promote their own financial interests free from state intervention magically improves the standards of living of all humans." Mathieugp 04:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've never seen that phrase used, though, in contrast to the much more common "neoliberalism". Meelar 04:25, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Economic neoliberalism" does not produce many result in Google it seems. However, in the links I followed, it definitely referred to what we are talking about here. I guess it's not really that important. Mathieugp

"Economic neoliberalism" is a pleonasm. Hyperion 23:11, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably a better solution would be to stress that "neoliberalism" is a pejorative concept often used for various different (and sometimes illiberal) ideologies or policies by the opponents of those policies.

I have created Neoliberal_economics with a redirect to this article. This is a phrase commonly used to refer to this subject. --HandHeld 06:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hayek

Why on earth is Hayek on this page? Yes, Thatcher read his fine books and misunderstood them, but her policies didn't follow too closely to Hayek's bigger picture! If he is mentioned, at least it could be made clear that Hayek was a whig, a classical liberal. --Lussmu 20:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As the discussion of Locke in the article states, that paradigmatic classical liberal was a mercantilist: so state intervention in the economy was fine for classical liberals. Hayek liked to present himself as a classical liberal, but he was only able to do so by misrepresenting what classical liberals actually thought about the proper role of the state in the economy.

That discussion has then went wrong. Liberalism, in the form in which Locke created it, was expressly a reaction against mercantilism. Everything that is new in it opposed state intervention. Locke might have not have drawn the conclusion of his own principles in every aspect, as he still has some old ballast, but applied consistently his principles would have meant suppressing all the state intervention. And there are other classical liberals who were more consistent in this. As for Hayek, he wasn't that consistent as you seem to think, so he actually didn't differ that much from Locke.--213.243.154.252 10:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article says that neoliberalism is "a political-economic movement beginning in the 1960s". But Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which said things very similar to what neoliberals say, came out in 1944 -- when Hayek was just a "voice in the wilderness". So if one's not going to call Hayek a neoliberal, he must at least be viewed as the "grandfather" of neoliberalism, and so it's virtually obligatory to link to him in this article.

(The Hayek article doesn't seem to be very far along, by the way. Even it doesn't raise the issue of whether or not it would make sense to call him a "classical liberal", or in what way Thatcher misunderstood him.) Hyperion 23:11, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Locke was before the actual canon of classical liberalism. That's a gross misinterpretation of classical liberal ideas; just because Locke was a mercantilist doesn't make classical liberalism supportive of it. Each and every notable thinker in the classical liberal canon after him aggressively fought for free markets.

Liberalism#Classical liberalism: "They favour a free market economy and reject any kind of government influence in society. They thus tend to be defiant to any kind of politics, including the politics of liberal politicians. Historically, classical liberalism has opposed mercantilism and socialism"--Lussmu 23:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The passage on "Classical liberalism" is incoherent and needs significant revision. It says classical liberalism recognizes "David Hume (as opposed to Immanuel Kant)", and at the same time claims that one of "the key characteristics of classical liberalism" is "reason". These two claims are inconsistent. Hume's position was that "reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions", whereas Kant, like Locke, believed that controlling our passions with our reason sets us free. Thus to side with Hume against Kant is to reject reason. Since this article makes such a fundamental error, it cannot be cited as an authority.

If you look at the entry on liberalism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which is written by experts) on the other hand, you will find that the case can not be made that "every notable thinker in the classical liberal canon after [Locke] aggressively fought for free markets." The Stanford entry says that "the seeds of this newer [welfare state] liberalism can be found in Mill's On Liberty". So there is ambiguity in classical liberalism about whether free markets are good or not. Hyperion 17:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the part about dismissing Kant is strange, and doesn't make sense. Please read the whole article, as like it said, "Mill said some interesting things but isn't part of the core classical liberal canon". --Lussmu 19:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to reading the whole article sometime. But Mill isn't part of the "core classical liberal canon" and neither, according to what you said above, is Locke. Funny: to me, Locke and Mill are the two most important figures creating the liberal tradition. Hyperion 04:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, certainly Locke was the first liberal, but of course he was just a starting point. Classical liberalism, as well as the enlightenment, evolved into much more after them. Mill was basically a "liberal", but pretty much all the other classical liberals were really close to minarchists, so it's hard to stick Mill in there comfortably. After all, he was ready to forfeit pretty much most of the negative freedoms the classical liberals fought for. --Lussmu 21:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually many of Mill's thoughts can be interpreted to represent classical liberalism. In his chief work, On Liberty, he defined the role of state like this: "...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." This is also the principle advocated by most modern libertarians, and lead to what was called "night watchman state" of classical liberalism. --213.243.154.252 10:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

neoconservatism

is there any real difference between neoconservatism and neoliberalism? Is it just me, or are these two misleading titles for the same concept? Thoughts if you will, both in answer to my question, and also in regards to how (and if) this should be incorperated within the article. Sam [Spade] 18:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The way I think of it, generally all neocons are neoliberals, but not necessarily vice versa. That is, I think of neoliberalism as a more specific set of economic policies, generally dealing with manipulating international trade. Democrats like Bill Clinton or Rich Rubin are arguably neoliberals but not neoconservatives. Of course, both neoliberal and neoconservative are usually derogatory, so it's hard to get a clear, neutral sense of what they mean. - Nat Krause 07:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, various other sources, and my old history teacher, neoconservatives are defined more by their position on international policy (i.e. militant anticommunism and antiterrorism). They often come from liberal or socialist backgrounds (which is were the "neo" comes from). They are less interested in the usual arguments of left and right. While they are almost exactly the same as neoliberals on social policy and economics (although, sometimes slightly more left in that area), the essential definition comes from their view on war and foriegn policy. So, yes, generally, a neoconservative is a neoliberal...but one that advocates a "hawkish" foriegn policy. But the same could be said for a neoliberal (sort of): a neoconservative with a "dovish" foriegn policy. Apparently it makes all the difference...Yossarian 03:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

Growth Rates Comparison

The comparisons of growth rates in the "practice" section simply cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. There is no way that you can compare growth rates from the sixties with those from recent times, as most developed countries were still recovering from the lows of the depression and WW2 and their fertility rates and population growth rates were much higher than they are now. Additionally many neo-liberals believe that the growth rates during the sixties and seventies were actually the result of high inflation during this period caused by greater influence of the government and not "real growth". An excellent source of information on this is the documentary called "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy"

Not only does the difference in the time periods make the comparison invalid, but the choice of countries doesn't work either. One can really only compare economic growth rates between two economies that are at similar levels of technology and development. A developing economy, such as that of the PRC, will grow much faster than developed economies such as those in North America and Europe, because technological change is much faster in the developing country. Thus, productivity grows more quickly, and the delta Y will therfore be much larger. And more than that, until recently, the PRC's energy usage has remained pretty stable, which makes me a little dubious about their stellar claimed growth rates (not to say that the Chinese economy is not booming, especially along the coast). That's now changing, and China is sucking up energy, to include petroleum products, at an accelerating rate, which is a pretty good indicator of real economic growth.

More than that, that seemed to be a fairly partisan comment, and doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia article. Binkymagnus 02:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links

Linking to clearly biased web sites like the world social forum and global exchange is insane for an encyclopaedia entry that should be neutral - this is no place for pushing political agendas.

Two comments

1) Where else are the "Chicago boys" referred to by "los Chicago boys"? Is this like the rock band "Los Straitjackets"? 2) How could anyone, in the U.S. or anywhere else, have been opposed to the Allende government of Chile since the early 1960s when he hadn't even come to power (or even that near to it back then). Were they opposed to Allende the man and his party (yes, probably, but somehow I think he was pretty much "under the radar" with regard to North Amercians and Europeans back then, or is the CIA really that "good" at their jobs?)? Rlquall 13:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

answers of sorts: 1) Sometimes the "Chicago Boys" have "Los" added to their name, but it's a matter of taste. 2) Allende and his Socialist Party were quite popular all through the 1960s and ran for president (in 1963 or 1964, I believe). The CIA and US economic interests didn't like him even before he attained office. After all, his party was the kind of socialist that wouldn't "play ball" with US interests and was willing to ally with the dreaded Communists. If I remember correctly, the CIA worked to keep him out of office in both the early-1960s election and in 1970. It's possible that it was the FBI that was involved in the early 1960s, since the FBI was in charge of managing Latin America before the CIA took over. Jim 19:02, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Does anyone know whether Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, often cited as the font of neoliberalism, actually uses the term "neoliberalism"? Also, if it does, does anyone know whether this is the first use of the term? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I read Capitalism and Freedom some time ago, so I'm not sure, but I would be very surprised if it uses the expression neoliberalism (at least, not in the sense that we use it here). I'm a little surprised, as well, that it is considered the font of neoliberalism. Who considers it as such? What does neoliberalism have to do with freedom? - Nat Krause 02:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The term 'neoliberalism' was coined in 1979 not by 'conservative republicans' but by Charlie Peters, who was the editor of the Washington Monthly. Here's a excerpt from a story in the Washington Post:

Peters's philosophy combined the New Deal liberalism of his youth with a dose of hardheaded skepticism about government bureaucracy. It came to be known as "neo-liberalism," a phrase Peters says he coined in a booze-fueled speech at the Monthly's 10th anniversary party in 1979.

"Somebody called us neo-conservatives in The Post that day," he recalls. "I said, we are not neo-conservatives, we're neo-liberals. We still believe in programs for the poor, but those programs should work."

From another publication:

Peters is often referred to as "the godfather of neoliberalism," with good reason: he coined the term to describe the magazine’s left-of-center, rationalist politics—the school of thought that now holds sway with Democratic leaders including Clinton and Al Gore.

The magazine in this quote is the Washington Monthly. - EGalloway 29 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

MF called himself a "liberal" in that book, saying that the classical 19th century version of liberalism was what he advocated. The term "neoliberalism" was invented (by whom? I don't know) to distinguish the revived form of classical liberalism from 20th century "new liberalism" and from the original form of classical liberalism.

Neoliberalism seems a lot like the classical form. In theory, it preaches freedom, but in practice it turns out to be almost entirely a matter of freedom of enterprise, which only provides freedom for those having significant net worth. The worst here is of course Our Noble and Wise President, Dubya, who preaches "freedom" while never getting even close to a definition. (He's also in favor of "democracy" when it serve his foreign-policy goals.) Jim 15:36, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

actually the term was used by the austrogerman school of Walter Eucken, Röpke etc. in the 30th

--84.136.198.6 13:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

i removed the opening assertion about a conservative republican origin for the term. not a shred of a reason to believe it. 71.105.90.199 / 23 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

understanding neoliberalism

It is my understanding that "neoliberalism" is a term originally used by "leftists" to describe and critique modern "free market" policies. But it has taken on many other connotations that include issues like social policy, neoconservative policy, foreign policy, and even religious fundamentalism. (This latter aspect has been connected by the development of post-9/11 policies undertaken by the Bush administration.) "The other side" refers to this paradigm simply and innocently as "the free market." From my numerous readings on the subject, it appears both sides are referring to the same "process" - but obviously have different definitions based on their respective beliefs. For example, the business community and "right-wingers" describe it as "free market policies that encourage private enterprise and personal choice and reward personal responsibility and entrepreneurial initiative." However, those who recognize the pitfalls of this direction, focus on the negative aspects. For instance, Robert McChesney describes it as "a process whereby a handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit." Noam Chomsky offers basic rules to neoliberal policy: to liberalize trade and finance, let markets set price, end inflation, and privitize. Some critics take it a step further by including post-9/11 policies such as The Patriot Act and the new trend of preemptive war (America attacking Iraq). For example, author Henry Giroux says: "As one of the most dangerous ideologies of the 21st century, neoliberalism has become a breeding ground for militarism, rapacious profiteering, and dissident profiling, and a new political and religious fundementalism that undermines the presupposition that democracy is about sharing power and resources." Giroux's description seems to be pinpointed on the developments of neo-conservativism in U.S. politics. His inclusion of the foreign policy issues and religious aspects suggest this. Technically, I think the term "neoliberalism" is derived from Adam Smith's classic reference to "liberal economics" in "The Wealth of Nations." Obviously, the prefix neo- is referring to new developments that have extended on Smith's original meaning. In other words, neoliberalism specifically refers to a new brand of capitalism and free-market ideology that seems to have taken form in the past few decades. While some may argue these policies are proper measures, and even necessary, others say they are too damaging - particularly in terms of social well-being.

I agree with the author of the last paragraph. My understanding of the term "neoliberalism" is that it refers to the reborn "liberalism" that followed the keynesian economics era. Neo-liberalism would refer to an economic doctrine that resurrected the original principals of liberal economics (Adam Smith comes to mind) and applied them to our present time. I think it is not accurate to say that it is only a tag given by "leftist" who simply oppose the free market system. The term is evidently used very negatively by a number of vocal opponents of capitalism in all its forms, but the opposition to neoliberalism also comes from economists who do not reject capitalism. -- Mathieugp 22:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is neoliberalism not the term used to describe the revival of liberal economics after a period of Post WWII keynesianism? [I got that from http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Neoliberalism.asp]

What's in it with the names?

There are people who call themselves “neoliberals” and use the term “neoliberalism”. But, they are not economists and they do not discuss economics when the term is used. Ronald D. Asmus and Kenneth M. Pollack consider themselves “neoliberals”. Please see their article in the Washington Post for their uses of the term “neoliberalism” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A26009-2003Jul21&notFound=true).

In the economic context, the term “neoliberalism” is used by the anti-globalization and the anti-privatization activists. To call these activists “leftists” only adds confusion to the issue. Marxists are pro-globalization but they are also “leftists”.

No, marxists aren't pro globalization, in the current use of the term. The term "globalization" is used omitting that it is a *capitalist* globalization, and presenting itself as a pioneer initiative. Marxists are commonly pro-internationalization, which in fact is a globalization, but not a capitalist one.

(Early) marxists believe in historical materialism, whereby production relations inevitably progress from one stage to the other. The stage after capitalism is communism. Communist society according to (early) marxists will be a stateless, therefore borderless, world society. *Capitalist* globalization is nothing but a precursor to *communist* globalization.

Yeah but modern day marxists are stupid just like all leftists and don't even know what Marx was saying. Most Marxists are not in favour of more capitalism as Marx was (since advanced capitalism is a necessary precursor to communism) but instead want to stop capitalism. Marxism is no longer a rationalist philosophy. It just another religion.

“Neoliberalism” is almost always associated with the policy stances of the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank. “Libertarianism”, like “classical liberalism”, on the other hand, oppose the creation of such a multilateral organization. So, “neoliberalism” and “libertarianism” are not one and the same.

Wiki’s entry associates “neoliberalism” with Robert Solow, Robert Mundell, Bradford DeLong, and Gregory Mankiw. The first two belong to a school of thought called by the economists as “neo-keynesian”. The latter two belongs to “new keynesian” school; so do Stanley Fischer, the former Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, and Joseph Stiglitz, the former Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. “Neo-keynesians” and “new keynesians” are intellectually at the loggerheads with “los Chicago Boys”. So, they cannot all be “neoliberals”. (Wiki has an entry on various schools of economic thoughts. More in-depth information can be found at http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/home.htm.)

Wiki’s entry also associates “neoliberalism” with Robert Rubin. He is a New Democrat, so is Bradford Delong. However, Joseph Stiglitz, the other new Keynesian, is no longer deemed a “neoliberal”.

In sum, pigeonholing “neoliberalism” is not a straightforward thing.

Prof DeLong still associates himself with neo-liberalism, as does prof stiglitz. It's a case of "meaning creep" for the word. At its basic neo-liberalism = free trade and privatization of state owned enterprises. That puts Bob in. Stirling Newberry 15:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Milton Friedman is also mentioned as a "Neoliberal", however he has many times suggested abolishing IMF. The creation of IMF and World Bank, as you will easily find out with a search engine search, was initiated by Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes, who both represent views contradictory to those of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School.--213.243.154.252 10:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Stiglitz and Sen

I took off Stiglitz and Sen by this page, because, although they could be considered defenders of globalization, they are both strong opponents of neoliberalism: Stiglitz follows a keynesian approach ancd he put under accuse neoliberalism in Globalization and its discountents, while Sen opposes the idea that the growth of the IGP means automatically "developement", while he argues that others indicators sholud be take in consideration.

Prof Stiglitz is critical of "laissez-faire" policies, so to someone where neo-liberal = laissez-faire colonialism, he isn't a neo-liberal. However, he has also been accused of being a neo-liberal because he is a strong proponent of globalization. In fact, his book castigates the West for practicing one way globalization - protecting its own markets and prices, while pushing down the prices of other goods. Thus for those that neo-liberal = pro-globalization, he is a neo-liberal.

(His reference to neo-liberalism is on 74 of Globalization and its Discontents"). Stirling Newberry 17:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same could be then said of the greatest part of economists, who argues that globalization is potentially a factor of progress, but many of them are not supporters of absolute free market approach. Stiglitz is hated by neoliberalists for his critics of Washington Consensus. I think that he shouldn't stay on this page.

And he is accused of being a neoliberal by anti-globalists. There's a controversy, it is documented. Stirling Newberry 23:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hence, [except] for core missions of income distribution, public-good infrastructure, administration of justice, and a few others, governments should shrink and privatize." I don't think that Stiglitz share this view. And many no-globals appreciate Stiglitz's views.

I'll ask him the question. Might as well get it right. Stirling Newberry 01:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism (United States)

Is there any link from this topic to Neoconservatism (United States)?--Nerd 20:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Liberalism != Austrian / Classical Liberalism

Although this has been somewhat repeated in these discussions, and perhaps what this entry really needs is some serious editing rather than perpetual commentary. I would like to reiterate that Neo-Liberalism (as commonly used outside the United States, and particularly in South America) has much more similarity to Neo-Conservativism (as used inside the United States) than it does Austrian Economics (Mises, Rothbard, Hayek) and Classical Liberalism. Though, Neo-Liberalism / Neo-Conservativism will often cite Austrian Economics (such as Thatcher of Hayek) to justify their interpretations.

Most prominently, Austrian Economics argues strongly against political institutions such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and OECD; and generally does not differentiate between "free markets from the top down" and the top-down central planning economies of socialism and communism. Likewise, the warhawk politics of Neo-Liberalism / Neo-Conservativism seems to parallel neocolonialism and thus imperialism.

NPOV

The article is, in my opinion, far biased against neoliberalism. For example, Ronald Reagan's and Margaret Thatcher's "imposition" of policies are not historic reality (at least in a neutral point of view, using such an impositive term). I think it needs more balance, as successes are not mentioned (such as the chinese example, where the impressive economic growth is kinda discarded and the opinion that the country is highly unequal and going nowhere is kinda imposed). Please express your thoughts. Kapil 00:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it is correct to say that the term neoliberalism is used most by opponents of neoliberalism. I have also seen it used in the Third World (in Spanish "neoliberalismo"). However, some commentaters call themselves neoliberals like Mickey Kaus of Slate.com. Neoconservatism has more to do with foreign policy, and I don't think anyone would know or care very much about a neoconservative's social or beliefs. For example, neoconservative David Brooks supports gay marriage. Is Donald Rumsfield pro-choice? Does anyone even care? Neoliberalism has many representatives especially in the centris Democratic Leadership Conference wing of the Democratic Party. Prominent neoliberals would be the Clintons, Gary Hart, and Joe Lieberman. I saw Gary Hart referred to as a neoliberal in the book Cadillac Desert, which is from the 1980s. It seems to be an old if infrequently used term. This may have something to do with the fact that politics is defined in terms of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States, with very little in between in the political debate.

I guess it is hard to say what is biased and not. Almost everything has to have a view point, so almost everything is biased in some way. E.g., Kapil: you said that those policies weren't really imposed, but it depends how you look at it. Their support for the overthrow of Allende in Chile to then support the murderous Pinochet who put in place neoliberal policies there has been described by some as a testing project of sorts, too. In a way then, neoliberalism was imposed on Chile. I haven't explained that very well in just a few short sentences, and I don't intend to expand on it as I don't have the time, though I realize what I have said here may been seen as controversial itself. Anyway, Kapil, I agree that there are some success stories too, but any failure or success is hard to put down solely on neoliberalism, perhaps, as there are numerous other factors involved (e.g. democratic or non-, personalities, mistakes while practicising the neoliberal policy, calling it neoliberalism but practicing something else, etc etc...)

Practice

The practice section is horribly biased against "neoliberalism." In particular, the Pollin paragraph clearly does not belong: its conclusions are questionable, and its containing section is probably not the right place to put all 10,000 critiques of the philosophy (or whatever you want to call it). What to do?

Asacarny 22:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

China

Why can't China be considered a state which follows neoliberal policies or for that matter India. In the case of India its policies are purely neoliberal (privatizations of state assets, deregulation, reduction of tariffs, more foreign ownership) and they have worked. China's policies are also extremely neoliberal (allowing full repatriation of profits of foreign companies, allowing foreign ownership, privitization of state assets including hospitals schools and telecom companies, reduction of tariffs, stable currency policy, allowing foreign companies to operate with no restrictions whatsoever, allowing foreign investment with few limitations, encouraging private ownership). The truth is all of China's reforms are strictly neoliberal since they have made it into more of a capitalist country. This is something opponents of neoliberalism don't want to admit since it completely undermines their position.

In the case of China there is not yet the same degree of economic freedom seen in the West. Compared to the old command economy it is far more liberal but there are still signficant degrees of political control. GreatGodOm 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

neoliberal a "pejorative concept"?

The article says "neoliberal is a pejorative concept..." Throughout Wikipedia the term is used.. So that would make all those uses POV. Is it true that it's a "pejorative concept" (I guess it means to say "pejorative term.")?

influence of partisan politics on usage of the term

i think no encyclopedia entry about neoliberalism would be complete without some prominent mention of the mainstream Democrat perspective. usage of the term 'neoliberalism' is strenuously opposed by Democrats who espouse free markets. their objection to usage of the term is strenuous enough to motivate some of them to falsely claim that the term itself was coined by conservative republicans. debates about the term are very often rooted in longstanding conflicts between corporate Democrats and leftist activist groups. these conflicts are very important (somebody should write a wikipedia article about them) but discussion about them is virtually suppressed in the USA.

Liberalism

The box linking articles on Liberalism is misleading & confusing. Neoliberalism is an ideology detatched from Liberalism. Speaking of confusing, everything explaining political/social/economic ideologies on this website is full of disinformation and contradictions! There should be some kind of guideline system to follow for explaining these complex systems. --Sansvoix 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Keynes' Welfare State

I strenuously object to this language in this article. To characterize Keynes in this way is disingenuous at best.

Jerry Lobdill

POV?

This article, especially the beginning, seems to approach the topic from a critical viewpoint and give more explanation to anti-neoliberal views than to pro-neoliberal views.

How so? I think it does a fairly "good" job of glossing over controversy.

It seems that this article follows closely the arguments of "anti-neoliberals". Can you give me some links to books or articles explicitly on "neoliberalism" that are written by explicit "neoliberals"? Most if not all such books are written by "anti-neoliberals". The only exception that I know is a small group of Swedish liberals who call themselves as "neoliberals", partially as a humorous reaction to the pejorative term "neoliberal".