Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Is there anyone who says, "I am a neoliberal"?

Is there anyone who says, "I am a neoliberal"? I have never run across anyone who says that. And this is a problem with this article because it is a term that I have only seen used by those who are criticizing free market philosophy. I have only seen it used as a straw man term, so to speak, used in essence as a slur. How can you define a belief system when no one stands up and says, "Yes that is what I believe"? How can you have a belief system that doesn't have any self-described adherents? Would it be better to merge this with another article, say on free market philosophy or classical economics? --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I just googled "I am a neoliberal" in quote marks, and digging down into the results found plenty of individuals willing to say those words, some even quite wholeheartedly. Try it. Riversider (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you quote one and give us a url? 1st page I found says "I am a neoliberal subject brought up, educated and trained in the NL space... It is bad, decidedly bad as it increases inequality, inequities, human lives have no place in its policies and stratagem.". The 2nd says "Why isn't there anyone out there who says forthrightly: "I am a neoliberal!"". The 3rd "blah blah i am a neoliberal blah blah, i believe money and lipstick liberate women in the 3arabi world! blah blah". The 4th "I am a neoliberal; no, I’m a critic of neoliberalism"and so on... Truth (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (CET)

Doesn't take that much finding, just wrap the phrase in quote tags: http://black-print-on-red.webs.com/apps/blog/show/next?from_id=5850285 "I am a libertarian, not a conservative... I am a capitalist not a marxist... I am a Neoliberal not a Nationalist... I am pro-American not anti-American"

http://iyinoluwa.org/2010/01/warming-up-to-winter.html "One of the questions on our final essay, worth about 30% of the final grade asks us if "alternatives to neoliberal globalization can prevail". No doubt, that sounds like a good question -except I am a neoliberal who thinks no alternatives to neoliberal globalization exist in the first place".

http://4rexpro.com/conservatives-have-a-problem-with-neo-liberals-forex-account/ "I kept seeing “neo liberal” as a derogatory term, and being a liberal, I looked it up. After reading on Wikipedia, I guess I am a neo liberal as well"

While I've responded to your challenge pretty easily, it was also rather pointless as none of the above would count as RS's for WP purposes, especially the one that mentions WP, as that would create a paradoxical circularity with all kinds of self-referential nesting that could endanger the logic of an encyclopedia. They are merely personal accounts by people who have thought about the political alternatives on offer and chosen to identify themselves as 'neoliberal' (which is what you were asking for after all). There is a view that 'neoliberal' is a word rather like 'Tory' which originated as an insulting epithet, but ultimately became adopted by the Tories themselves in the UK. It's also a word that is used widely and routinely among academics, some of whom use the word as an insult, many more attempting to use it in a neutral sense, but all in as much agreement as it's possible for academics to form (they make their living by disagreeing with each other after all), that there is a definable set of ideas, values and policies that can be categorised as 'neoliberal'. Higher up in this discussion page you'll find examples from RS's of neutral and even positive usages of the term. Including this one from Tim Worstall of the Adam Smith Institute: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/more-on-this-neo%11liberalism-thing/ "Or as those desiring that near a billion people escape poverty and join us in enjoying the fruits of the bourgeois lifestyle should perhaps be saying, neo-liberalism is dead: long live neo-liberalism." Riversider (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• What you're saying may be true--however I think that this is a non-trivial issue that deserves treatment in the article, since I too have generally heard it in negative context. I studied economics and never encountered the term in my readings until I took a class (human geography) in another department--and the tenets of "neoliberalism" are basically those that I'd been learning in my economics classes. I'll try to find some good references to add a new section on the history of the term and the way it's used.216.236.251.130 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's a start on the history--this blog article tackles the subject; though not itself a reliable source, it links to a lot of promising articles. The premise of the blog piece is that there are two senses of the term, one which people self-identified as in 1980s America (and which seems rather different from that which this Wikipedia article is on), and another, "European" sense that is more like this article. The plot thickens! Statisfactions (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem stems from the fact that outside the USA liberal means political and economic freedom, i.e. free minds and free markets as the slogan of the libertarian Cato Institute says. Thus, neo-liberal means nothing more than the revival of liberalism. However, in the USA, where they changed the meaning of the word liberal, the term neo-liberal is confusing. It brings back the original meaning of liberal as in classical liberal. I originally noticed the term neo-liberal in non-American writers. If the term neoliberal becomes embraced by advocates of the free market in the USA it will have to come with a revival of the original meaning of liberal. As the term progressive becomes the more common term for social democrats the term liberal might revert to its international meaning, i.e. libertarian. I see that at times when the phrase economic liberal is used. Otherwise, the term neo-liberal is mostly a non-American term or academic term. It is widely used and needs a page in wikipedia. However, I believe it should be nothing more than a link to libertarianism or classical liberalism. After all, it is the revival of classical liberalism in the latter part of the 20th century. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The politicians Ludwig Erhard and Luigi Einaudi called themselves "neoliberal". Also the scholars Alexander Rüstow, Wilhelm Röpke, Friedrich August von Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack or Milton Friedman called themselves so. --Obzova (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fascinating Obzova: Can you find published sources where there are examples of these people using the term 'neoliberal' to describe themselves? If so we should be able to incorporate this information into the article. Riversider (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I too would like to see references to the self-application of the term neo-liberal. They call themselves liberal--period. Ludwig von Mises wrote the book. He along with Erhard and Friedmen joined Hayek in the Mont Pelerin Society to revive liberalism. In the 1970s I remember reading the entry for liberalism in the Encyclopedia Americana--it was written by Milton Friedman and it was about free markets and political liberty. This is the correct usage of the word liberal and its usage worldwide. Unfortunately, my fellow Americans, who are generally ignorant of history and matters outside their own borders, misuse the word. That's why there needs to be some explanation in the article to indicate that liberal means libertarian and not social democracy. Don't you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rüstow coined the term and used it regularly to label himself. It is easy to find published sources for this. For Erhard I could find only a source in German [1] (Translation), for Einaudi [2]. Here is a list of other persons who calls themselves "neoliberal" [3]. --Obzova (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Erhard’s tribute to his teacher Franz Oppenheimer discuses several terms. Oppenheimer prefers “liberal socialism” while Erhard said he prefers “social liberalism”. He says he was commonly classified as “neo-liberal.” I can’t tell if he doesn’t object. It doesn’t seem to be his preferred term but it does describe his anti-cartel laws that replace laissez-faire harmonious liberalism. I don’t see neo-liberal in the second reference. The last was written in 2007. I can’t read the German so I don’t know if this is the book's author calling them neo-liberal or they call themselves neo-liberal. He lists Ludwig von Mises. I know Mises calls himself a liberal but I don’t remember seeing him call himself a neo-liberal. I'll see if I can translate the German. I’d still like to see self-references. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the above remarks I found a remark on Rüstow's usage of neoliberalism on Wiki's social liberalism page. It says Rüstow "applied the label neoliberalism to this kind of social liberalism, although that term now features a different meaning than the one mentioned by Ruestow." So, Obzova, if you are correct you might want to edit that page. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The above list contains names of persons that are commonly classified as neoliberal and some of them used the term to label themselves as neoliberal. For example Rüstow - who coined the term at the Colloque Walter Lippmann [4][5] - used it regularly to label himself. Röpke was a good friend of Rüstow and used also the term sometimes to label himself, though he didn't like the expression [6]. Erhard stated that he is commonly classified as neoliberal and that he accept this classification. Further Erhard label Eucken, Röpke, Rüstow, Hayek and Böhm as neoliberal [7]. Einaudi labeled here and here ("we neoliberals") himself as neoliberal and labeled here Erhard as "the most famous exponent of this school of thought". Friedman used the term self-referentially in an article [8]. --Obzova (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The question remains whether all these “new liberalisms” or neo-liberalisms are the same thing. Herbert Croly (together with Walter Lippmann) founded the New Republic Magazine and created a “new liberalism” (see Croly) that in America is called modern liberalism or progressivism. This, of course, is not the neo-liberalism of Hayek. Lippmann supported the pro-Soviet Henry Wallace for President when he ran on the Progressive Party in 1948. If Lippmann was a neo-liberal it wasn’t in the Hayek sense but the Croly-Dewey-Wilson-FDR sense. Indeed the reference you give me says this type of neo-liberalism requires a strong state.

The Friedman article is fascinating. It seems to be his only self-reference using the neo-liberal (and not just plain liberal) phrase. It doesn’t seem to be a continued usage as your reference explains. He abandoned the term for reasons that are unclear. In “Capitalism and Freedom” he uses liberal in self-referential phrases many times. He seems to have settled on liberalism without any qualifier.

Overall it seems to be a European term with many variations such as Ordoliberalism which accepts a strong role for the state contra Hayek and certainly contra von Mises. It seems at best a mere flirtation with the phrase “neo-liberal” by market liberals in the English speaking world. I happen to like the neo-liberal term but my feelings don’t matter. The term seems to be used in a continuous basis by the critics of the liberal economy in the English literature but rarely by adherents of economic liberalism. Perhaps this should be noted in the article. Thanks for the great links. I only wish I could remember the little German I learned in college 40+ years ago so I could read the literature in the original. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the persons who are categorized as neoliberals differ in some aspects and Lippmann is surely not the "typical" neoliberal. But there is a common core of all neoliberal thinkers.

Riversider2008 wrote "That's fascinating" to read that there are people who calls themselves neoliberal. For me it's exactly the opposite: it's fascinating that there are peoples who don't know this. In Germany if you look up in an encyclopedia, you will read that "neoliberalism" is a liberal movement in the middle of the 20. century with the main exponents Hayek, Eucken, Rüstow, Röpke and Friedman. The "birth" was the Colloque Walter Lippmann and the Mont Pelerin Society was the place they met each other and exchanged ideas. The Social market economy was the implementation of the theory in the practice. This you can read in all encyclopedias. I can't imagine that it is very different in the US. Of course the scholarly exchange between US exponents like Friedman, Frank Knight, Henry Calvert Simons, George Stigler, James M. Buchanan or Gordon Tullock on the one side and the European exponents on the other side was not extremely strong so some authors differ in US-neoliberalism and European-neoliberalism. But Hayek always has been the connecting link between this scholars and therefore he is considered to be part of the US-neoliberalism and European-neoliberalism [9]. Some authors point out that there was a controversy in the 1960ies in the MPS between Hayek and Mises at one side and Rüstow and Röpke at the other side. But Hayek, Mises, Erhard and Müller-Armack always remained friends and Erhard and Müller-Armack stated that Mises and Hayek are forward thinkers of the Social market economy and Hayek regarded it as his task to continue the tradition of Walter Eucken p. 241[10].

I can't understand why I can't read this informations in the article here. Here you can read only something about the usage of the expression "neoliberalism" as an anti-liberal slogan. At least the Social market economy as implementation of the theory in Germany should be mentioned [11]. --Obzova (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem here (in America) is that modern liberals argued for a ‘‘new liberalism’’ via government intervention in the early 20th century largely because the word ‘‘socialism’’ had bad press. In the 1950s classical liberals who wished to retain the liberal label (like von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman) lost the battle to William Buckley and Russell Kirk, who argued for the conservative label. A so-called fusion brought the traditionalist and liberal wings together under Buckley’s conservative label.

Hayek never liked it. There is an essay reprinted in Schneider’s book [[12]] by Hayek called “Why I Am Not A Conservative” from 1959. He refers to a “great gulf that exists between my position and the rationalistic Continental liberalism or even the English liberalism of the utilitarians ...” “In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use liberal in the sense in which I have used it, the term libertarian has been used instead ... [which] I find it singularly unattractive.” Wait, there’s more! “Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe.”

Of course, in America, what one is conserving is the liberal tradition. In Europe the word ‘‘liberal’’ has retained much of its 19th century meaning so that neo-liberal flows from the tongue quite easily. It is the correct usage and I don’t think either advocate or critic should shun the term. In any case, I’m glad wikipedia has some entries for the revival of liberal thought in the post-WWII period for Europe and the world. To have some access to European thought is of great value. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have published sources that state that Mises, Hayek, Rüstow, Röpke, Eucken, Erhard, Friedman... are commonly classified with the label "modern liberalism"? I can find many published sources that state that they are commonly classified with the label "neoliberalism" but not "modern liberalism". --Obzova (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, definitely not modern liberalism. It was John Dewey, Herbert Croly, Charles Beard, Walter Lippmann and others argued for a new type of liberalism. Their modern liberalism was the new liberalism in the early half of the 20th century. They wanted the liberal label even though they advanced socialism or a watered down version of socialism. The classical liberals opposed that but lost the fight for the word liberal in the public mind (here in the USA). This is why neo-liberal, which is literally new liberal is confusing to Americans. It is the revival of classical liberal ideas and opposed to modern liberal (now sometimes called progressivism). I have to continually correct my fellow Americans when they think neo-liberal means a revival of the Wilson-FDR-LBJ school of left-wing modern liberalism. Of course, Hayek & others use the word liberal correctly. And this article uses neo-liberal in the correct sense, as it is used outside America. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is quite bad and I understood you mean that modern liberalism labels people like Hayek, Friedman, Eucken or Rüstow. What I want to say is that in this article here miss out important informations like the Mont Pelerin Society as a "rallying point" for the neoliberal cause [13] and the the Social market economy as an implementation of the theory in Germany [14]. This should absolutely be outlined. --Obzova (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, there's work for you to do, if you want. And your English is excellent. It's American English that has a problem because of the contradictory ways we use the word liberal. By the way, here's a link about John Dewey and the New Liberalism as modern liberalism was called back then. [[15]] That's why things are confusing in American English! But hopefully our wikipedia article makes clear that neo-liberalism is a revival of classical liberalism, at least in part. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If the references are in German, that should not matter for WP purposes. Please use them to enrich the article. As long as they are reliable sources, they count for WP. If we can overcome 'language silos', where particular knowledges only belong to speakers of one language, then WP is beginning to do its job of representing the sum of human knowledge. Riversider (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

O.K., I have added the article as discussed. Please correct my English. --Obzova (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There are some problems with that section. The content is fine but too much is verbatim. I started a Mont Pelerin section below to discuss the issues. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Germany

User:Byelf2007 changed the sourced statement "It was in West Germany where neoliberal ideas were first implemented. The neoliberal economists around Ludwig Erhard could draw on the theories they had developed in the 1930s and 1940s..." into "Neoliberal economists such as Ludwig Erhard would use the theories he developed in the 1930s and 1940s..." with the comment "that's a stretch" [16]. Could Byelf2007 explain this please? I can't see a stretch, Germany is considered as the first implementation of neoliberal ideas in many sources and all neoliberals pointed out this. A stretch it would be to write that this was a 100% implementation of neoliberalism but nowbody contradicts that neoliberal ideas were implemented. Even Erhard and Müller-Armack stated that themselves und Rüstow, the originator of the term "neoliberalism" considered the terms "neoliberalism" and "social market economy" as synonyms [17]. --Obzova (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mont Pelerin Society

Some issues for the Mont Pelerin Society Section:

The following sentence is verbatim from Mirowski's book and violates copyright laws: "Hayek and others believed that classical liberalism had failed because of crippling conceptual flaws and that the only way to diagnose and rectify them was to withdraw into an intensive discussion group of similarly minded intellectuals." It should be summarized or paraphrased. I can't do it because I can't tell from the books context what the "crippling conceptual flaws" were.

I'm afraid the following is also verbatim (from Helleiner's book) except for the italic insert: "After its initial success, it continued under the leadership of Hayek to promote neoliberal ideas and met almost every year in different countries."

The last sentence also verbatim and has to be paraphrased. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed the wording of several sentences by consulting the references and summarizing as best as I could. I added the Nash reference since Mirowski quoted Nash and Nash had more information that confirms the Mont Pelerin as the leading force in neo-liberalism in the years after WWII. I tried to keep the internationalist nature of the movement clear. And I tried to express the extremely isolated nature of out-of-power and out-of-fashion intellectuals. Jason from nyc (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that it is a problem to edit a sentence verbatim if you quote the source. And I have difficulties to change the wording because my English it's not so good. Thanks for your help. The sentence “Hayek and others believed that classical liberalism...” from Mirowski's book is important, because Mirowski call this a rationale for founding [18]. Many people associate neoliberalism with "laissez faire" and of course neoliberals wanted a renewal of classical liberalism in the meaning of Adam Smith. But specially at the beginning they distanced themselves strictly from "a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude" as Hayek it phrased [19]. The rejection of "laissez-faire" was what the neoliberals meant with "neo" [20]. To phrase like that it's maybe easier to understand than "crippling conceptual flaws" ;-).--Obzova (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

For now, let me put the whole sentence in quotes so that we aren't accused of plagiarism. I'll have to re-read the literature to refresh my memory about the liberal mindset at the time. I vaguely remember that there were some deviations from strict classical liberalism that were accepted. I don't remember if that was a compromise given the hostility to liberalism or that was a belief that pure liberalism was flawed. Do you remember the details? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It was no "hostility to liberalism". Quite contrary the neoliberals considered themeselves as reformers of liberalism. But in my opinion you can't compare neoliberals with "social liberals" and I can't understand why neoliberalism is listed in the article Social liberalism. In my view you have regard to the historical situation at this time. It required some rhetorical concessions to the anti-liberal spirit of the time. Later, in 1981 Hayek stated in an interview, that he was not a neoliberal because he wants to improve upon, but not fundamentally change, the postulates of classical liberalism. --Obzova (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I see the German neo-liberals found a role for the state in several respects that classical liberals did not. The was an active role for the state to prohibit what is seen as anti-competitive practices, provide social insurance, and a economic safety net by a limited redistribution of wealth. Is this part of neo-liberalism or merely a compromise that includes non-liberal elements given political realities? While Hayek was an active member of the neoliberal community, his more radical path to "spontaneous order" was rejected by the neo-liberal state-guided order (hence the "ordo" in ordoliberalism). Is that not so? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All neoliberals found a role for the state in several respects that classical liberals did not. This is not specific for the German neoliberals. But there are of course differences in the role for the state they found. Frank Knight, Rüstow or Müller-Armack founded a bigger role for example, Eucken and Hayek a smaller. So you can't say, German neoliberals are like this and American neoliberals are like that. But all German neoliberals are against national social insurance. Of course they agreed (like Hayek or Friedman) with a public assistance in the meaning of the principle of subsidiarity. But the political practice in Germany differed from the neoliberal concept. Oliver Marc Hartwich wrote: "Whereas Erhard had always insisted that the market was inherently social and did not need to be made so, in political practice the German welfare state grew bigger—much to the dismay of Rüstow. He complained that the German welfare state had developed into an overly complicated system since it was started under Bismarck.78 Rüstow also called for a more restrictive social policy as a prerequisite of the Social Market Economy. A social policy, he warned, could well turn into an anti-social policy if it burdened the public with excessive taxes." page 22 Statements like that you can find also of Röpke, Erhard or Müller-Armack. With the time the redistribution of wealth became bigger and bigger. A famous example was the annuity insurance founded 1957 against the resistance of Erhard. He called this "the end of the social market economy". The expression "social market economy" still label the current practice in Germany but it's very different of the ideas of Erhard. If there are differences between Hayeks "spontaneous order" end the ideas of German neoliberals - you can find plentiful literature. Some authors believe they are very similar, other authors believe they are very different. For example Ingo Pies stated here that Euckens ideas and Hayeks "spontaneous order" are compatible and that the authors who think they aren't compatible ignored the different semantic usage of the term "order" from Hayek and Eucken. But I think this is to much detailed for the article here (the German article contains these informations but I think that Jane and John Doe are not interested ;-)).--Obzova (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

• "For some adherents, a limited welfare state was acceptable. They rejected Keynsianism as well as von Mises’ “paleoliberalism”, as they called it. While Hayek was influential his more radical rejection of state intervention was rejected by the German neoliberals."

This description is not neutral. I can bring many sources that confirms that all neoliberals refused a welfare state, possibly only Müller-Armack acceptet a very limited welfare state for a time. Only Rüstow called Mises "paleoliberal". I can't comprehend that this should be relevant for this article. Mises surely was quite extrem inside of the neoliberalism but all neoliberals except Rüstow accepeted him as one of them. And that Hayeks "more radical rejection of state intervention was rejected by the German neoliberals" is a exaggeration. This is just one point of view that has been rejected by others [21][22]. --Obzova (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It think it is relevant because it reflects the literature. That’s all that wikipedia claims to do. There exists some disagreement on terminology and it should be noted. The Boas study shows some shift in historical emphasis. It doesn’t resolve the question on best usage although it suggests it needs to be resolved.

I can’t ascertain intention and I don’t think most historians do. They do describe the original neo-liberals as advocates of market economy with regulations and government provided social protections. To argue that the neo-liberalism refers to the free market part and not the whole package is something that needs to be done by reference to the literature. We can't do the research but we can report on the research.

That being said, what wording would you use to describe the compromise advocated by the post-WWII neo-liberals and what reference would use use to support it. Let’s consider the possibilities. We don’t have to rely solely on Boas for the post-WWII usage but I think his study of the current usage (or misusage) tells us something about the current state of affairs in scholarly activity. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the study of Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse is the best study about the semantic change of the expression "neoliberalism". The titel of the study is "From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan" and the abstract start with "In recent years, neoliberalism has become an academic catchphrase..." [23] Exactly for this semantic change to a catchphrase the study is imho a premium source. In German Wikipedia the article de:Neoliberalismus is structured in two parts: 1. the new liberal philosophy and 2. the semantic change to an anti-liberal slogan. The second part bases near-completely on the study of Boas/Gans-Morse. Most of the content of the article here in the English Wikipedia are examples for the usage of the expression as catchphrase. Neither Junichiro Koizumi nor the Mexican government are useful examples for the liberal philosophy. Somebody used the catchphrase to label them, that's all. IMHO you can delete all these sections like "Japan", "Mexico" or "Scandinavia". This is random content. You can find thousands of examples like this for usage as catchphrase. Relevant there are just two things: 1. the new liberal philosophy and 2. the semantic change to an anti-liberal slogan. For second part Boas/Gans-Morse is a premium source, for first part it is just one source of many. Boas/Gans-Morse stress the differences between German neoliberals and American neoliberals. Other authors stress the similarities. Both POVs you can describe documented. But you have to show both POVs. Boas/Gans-Morse describes the liberal philosophy only sketchy because they just wanted to show the semantic change. Other authors have a different and more detailed view and show the things in common specially of Hayek and Walter Eucken. This and the controversy between Hayek/Mises and Rüstow/Röpke at the MPS in the 1960s (this was the incident Boas/Gans-Morse are referring to when they state that German neoliberals reject Hayeks concept) can be described in the section "Mont Pelerin Society". However in the section "Terminology" the POV of Boas/Gans-Morse about the relationship between Hayek/Mises and Rüstow/Röpke is imho not relevant. I hope you understood that I mean despite my lousy English. --Obzova (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I started reading the German entry and it looks good. I'll have to continue reading tomorrow. You are right that Boas/Gans-Morse are weak on the explanation of the neo-liberalism as originally conceived. Of course, their focus is primarily on the last 20 years. We certainly should describe the post-WWII neo-liberalism from a better source and leave Boas/Gans-Morse as an explanation of the current use or misuse of the term. I quickly re-read most of Hayek's Road to Serfdom to understand his differentiation of the neo from the classical liberalism. He seems, at that point, to be close to the other neo-liberal theorists. Even if Hayek changed his views 20-40 years later, his 1943 work gives me a sense of the state of neo-liberal thought in the 1940s. What do you think? Unfortunately, we can't use "Road to Serfdom" because it is a primary text. We need a secondary text that explains the neo-liberalism of the 1940-50s (and not just Hayek's thought) and describe how it is still liberalism but yet neo-liberalism. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I wanted. To explain the neo-liberalism of the 1940-50s based on secondary text. But I am not able to do this alone because of my lousy English. If I read that you "quickly re-read most of Hayek's Road to Serfdom", for me it is fascinating because I would need more than one year for this. For structuring I would propose we need an overview of history with the Colloque Walter Lippmann, the foundation of the MPS, the discussions at the MPS and practical implementation of the social market economy. For the several schools I would propose to structure it by countries. For Germany we have to to differentiate into ordoliberalism (Eucken, Böhm), "sociological neoliberalism" (Rüstow, Röpke, Müller-Armack) and "social market economy" (not in the meaning of the implementation, but in the meaning of the concept of Erhard). This is a premium source to describe the German scholars. To understand the differances/commonalities between German neoliberalism and American neoliberalism this differentiation is necessary. Many differances base on the different problems of the political practice in the countries.

Hayek's Road to Serfdom was very important for the neo-liberalism of the 1940-50s. The German neoliberals had copies of the manuscript already before publishing though it was dangerous because of the Nazi dictatorship. The translation to German in 1956 was made by the wife of Röpke and Röpke wrote the introduction. Some authors stated that Road to Serfdom had been essentially for the "social market economy". The question if Hayek changed his views 20-40 years later is controversial. Some authors stated that it is irony that Hayek changed his mind exactly in the time than he was in Freiburg (although Hayek stated the he wants to continue the tradition of Walter Eucken [24]), other authors consider his work as an advancement of Euckens work to adapt to new challenges. The scholars of the Walter Eucken Institut support the latter position. In Germany "ordoliberal" has a very positiv connotation and the label "ordoliberal" is engrossed by different interest groups even by The Left (Germany), while "neoliberalism" has a negativ connotation. These groups take a great interest in exaggerating the differences between ordoliberalism and American neoliberalism. If you insert the historical fact - that Erhard as well as Müller-Armack called Hayek explicitly a mastermind of the social market economy - into the German Wikipedia you will trigger a shitstorm. So more than 20% of the German article "Neoliberalismus" thematize the differences betwenn Hayek and the German neoliberals. I think this is ridiculous and completly uninteresting for Jane and John Doe. So we shouldn't make the same mistake and should only show that there are some commonalities and some differences very briefly and succinctly. But this doesn't belong to the section "Terminology" and should be discussed at another place. IMHO the section "Terminology" should be moved to the beginning of the article and it should contain the information that "neoliberalism" label a Liberal Philosophy in the 1930s-1950s and recent years it has become an Anti-Liberal Slogan. Details about the Liberal Philosophy are described in the section "Post-WWII neo-liberal currents", details about the usage as catchprase are described in the section "Post-1970s economic liberalism". What's your opinion about this proposal? --Obzova (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the the changes that are needed. However, this is a major proposal. I'm new to editing this article and I think we need to hear from the other editors.

I just read Hayek's "Free" Enterprise and Economic Order published in 1948. It was the basis for his Mont Pelerin talk of 1947 and gives me a better sense of the way he differs from classical liberalism while still maintaining respect for and protection of competition and the market process. I still have must to read here. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, today's changes to the terminology section are an improvement and clarifies the history of the term's usage. Thanks, Obzova. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

P. Sainath is a critic

P. Sainath, a rural journalist, Magsaysay (and a whole other list) award winner, described as "one of the world's leading authorities on hunger", author of bestseller "everybody loves a good drought", journalism professor, and more categorically criticizes neo liberal policies. His lecture globalizing inequality and many others, a film made about his journalistic work on the consequences of neo-liberal policies manifesting as farmer suicides is called "nero's guests". I don't know how to edit here, but he has a page here on wikipedia too and countless videos on youtube and articles all over the internet about the devastating impact of neoliberal policies on the poor and farmers of India and inequality worldwide.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.85.235 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2012‎ (UTC)

How is this any different from classical-liberal or free market proponent? Merge?

If you can't point to a single schooler which defines himself as a "neoliberal" than the article is completely misleading, neoliberal is not in fact a school of though but rather a term used by the left, and the left only, and only in that context. If I am not mistaken in the above claim regarding this not being used to denote a truly distinct school of thought I suggest the article be dramatically altered to reflect this or merged to economic liberalism.--MeUser42 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

because it is new. Just like neo-nazism is just like old nazism only nowadays, and just like a Neo-Nazi will generally call himself a National Socialist and not a neo-nazi. Or just like neo-paganism is just like classical paganism only practiced today, and just like a Neo-pagan will generally just claim to be pagan or to belong to a paricular neo-pagan faith. It shouldn't be so difficult to fathom really.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So let's say "neo" before anything. Neo-nazi is because Nazi Party is no longer in existence since 1945. What about here?--MeUser42 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of National Socialist parties in existence, none of which considerthemselves neo. Yet they are generally referred to as such.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Listen, did I explain why the supporters of a historical party are prefixed "neo" or did I claim they aren't called that? "Practiced today" is irrelevant. Everything that is "practiced today" should be called a "neo"? common, this is bluntly ignoring the context in which this term is always used...--MeUser42 (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sighs. Read the rest of this talk page please MeUser. Your point has been made and rebutted over and over again. Neoliberalism is a term that occurs so often and so consistently in academic literature, and is used by academics by so many different backgrounds, that it would be incredibly remiss of WP to pretend that it simply doesn't exist or is indistinguishable from classical liberalism. If it was indistinguishable from classical liberalism, why do all those hundreds of thousands of academics not use the term 'classical liberalism' instead? If you feel they should, then your argument is with them, not with WP which merely reflects the terminology that the published sources use. Riversider (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I do believe you completely misunderstood me. I know and said it's in use. So your replying to what you thought I said, not what I said. But, there is not a single schooler who defines himself as a "neoliberal"... It's used in many articles, allways in the context of a word used by the left. Shouldn't the article reflect this very relevant fact? --MeUser42 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Only if you assume that academia is "left" per definition. You are getting in to a No true scotsman fallacy here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't assumed "academia is left". Nowhere did I assumed it. I read a lot of economics, and this is the only context in which the term is used. Please show me a single counter example. Secondly, am I just making it up? Are actually arguing there is no truth to the claim the term is used in the context of a left arguer describing a free market position?--MeUser42 (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know works in political science, environmental science, sociology, anthropology and philosophy that use the term to describe the topic they are studying. But they're probably all leftists I'm sure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Manus, please show me a single, one counter example. Just for my horizens, as I haven't seen one. Are you claiming the term "neoliberal" is not very, very commonly used in that context? Why are all the responses here about this? Are people ashamed of their positions endorsing free-market policies? Iv'e seen this term used hundreds, thousands of times, it's quite obvious. What I'm saying is that a prominent fact such as this is of interest to a reader and should be added...--MeUser42 (talk) 02:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, we discuss the term in the Terminology section of the article, which, by the way, I recently wrote. See if this answers some of your questions. There's a suggestion above that the Terminology section be moved to the top of the article. Perhaps the continued debate here in the "Talk" proves that this is needed. What do people think? Jason from nyc (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jason, as I said, Iv'e seen this term used many hundreds of times, this is the context. Who describes himself as a neoliberal? libertarian, capitalist, ext, yes. Not noting the most common usage a term is overwhelmingly used (I welcome a single counter example) is just unencyclopedic IMO. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Boas/Gans-Morse article there were those who called themselves neo-liberal ... in the 1940s. Obzova, above, pointed this out and I found the Boas article confirming this usage. Now the Boas article points out that it isn’t used today by liberals (of any sort) but it is used by critics of liberalism. They point out that these critics never define the term neo-liberal but the context suggests several implicit referents. They argue that if the term isn't properly defined, it ceases being a neutral descriptor suitable for contemporary social science but, instead, degenerates into a slur word. Thus, it is a valid word for a historic movement but (according to Boas study) questionable as an operative social science category. I'm just reporting what they argue. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming Boas/Gans-Morse are correct to some extent, and given the undeniable way the term neoliberal is used today, to not include a clear reference is misleading to any reader. I suggest moving the Terminology section up, and modifying the lead like so:

Neoliberalism is a contemporary term denoting economic liberalism often used by the political left when referring to policies supportive of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets tand globalization. Neoliberals refers to those who seek to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the world.

Again, the article as it currently is is a gross misdirection. --MeUser42 (talk) 11:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Terminology section should me moved. I'd suggest it should be the first section after the lead. It shows both the usage of the term in the immediate post-WWII era by adherents and the current usage by critics. The lead should be changed somehow. But first let's move the Terminology section. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will do so tomorrow. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at the section of the talk page above titled "Is there anyone who says 'I am a neoliberal', and the section 'neoliberalism is used positively, not just as a perjorative'. There are several strong counter-examples there. This argument has actually been repeated several times here. There is nothing unusual about a trend in political or economic thought being identified and labelled first by it's opponents, and then that label becoming used more generally. The term neoliberal is well along that process, where it is used not just by 'lefts' but also by neutrals, and even a few of the neoliberals themselves, it's certainly a term that everyone thinks they understand the meaning of when they use it or hear it. Also to say "a contemporary term denoting" is just a posh way of saying "a label for" or "a term describing", which as I've pointed out higher up this page is bad WP formatting. Every WP topic is a "term denoting" so the words are logically redundant. Riversider (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Riverside, this is getting ridicules in the extreme, you decided it would "one day become the commonly used term". When it will be so, we will talk. Up until than the article should clearly reflect the current status of the term. It's very good unbiased WP.--MeUser42 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your original contention is that the term is not used by neoliberals themselves, but only by 'lefts'. If you read the sections I refer you to (and many of the references in the article itself), you will see for yourself that the term is used by neutrals, and even a few of the neoliberals themselves, though I'm perfectly willing to accept that this is still a rare event. It's certainly a VERY commonly used term across an extraordinarily wide variety of academic fields, and in everyday political life. Equally, you'll find frequent use of the term 'terrorist' by opponents of terrorism, and by neutrals, but very few people who will identify themselves as 'terrorists'. This does not mean that terrorism is not a suitable topic for WP. I say I have a cough, my doctor says I have Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder. Does the existence of COPD become more real or more valid for WP if I self-identify with that term? Riversider (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Terrorism article can freely reflect the negativity of the concept. In an article denoting a political economic view a term overwhelmingly used a pejorative should be marked as such. To a reader trying to understand a term which is overwelmingly used as a pejorative this is clearly very relevant information. --MeUser42 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But the term isn't used 'overwhelmingly' as a perjorative. I can't say exactly, but I'd say there are just as many neutral uses of the term as there are perjorative uses. Academics strive for a neutral and objective tone, and there are plenty that achieve this. And there are plenty of non-left academics, including a school that argue in favour of 'macro-corporatism' (the alliance and coordination of businesses, particularly as a method of resisting organised labour) who also use the term 'neoliberalism' to describe contemporary economic practice. Riversider (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Extended Definition Pre-addition Feedback

I have been busy beavering away and writing an extended definition section, which is located at User:Aphenine/neoliberalism-draft, and I was wondering, would anyone please be so kind as to give me some initial feedback on it? Eventually, I'd like to add this to the start of the article, as a way of shedding some light on the debate about whether neoliberalism is/is not different from classical liberalism and whether it is a pejorative solely invented by the left by trying to define as precisely and in a way to minimise bias as much as possible.

To give a little context for the reason why I wrote that section and why I think it's badly, badly needed, I tried to write the shock therapy article and I got horribly lost trying to explain the theoretical reasons why shock therapy did or did not work. I knew, from reading lots of stuff on the left, that the theoretical basis for some attempts were tied in with something called neoliberalism and that this was different in some way from normal free market theory which I did not understand. But when I looked up this article, I didn't understand anything any better then I did before and I was even more confused. Being even more confused, I started to look up the term beyond Wikipedia and there I got even more confused, and I started to realise that, basically, the meanings of just about every term in liberalism, not least neoliberalism itself, are completely fluid. No one means the same thing when they use half the terms and Wikipedia is riddled with this too. So classical liberalism can mean economic liberalism, libertarianism or liberalism, while liberalism may mean social liberalism, while economic liberalism may mean economic libertarianism, economic liberalism or the economic component of classical liberalism and so on and so forth.

Reading up about the views of principle figures in the neoliberalism movement didn't help either. For example, the back of my Frederick Hayek book tells me he is the grandfather of neoliberalism. But, even though I haven't managed to finish it, it does not take a genius to figure out that Hayek's views have little to do with Friedman,. While Friedman has little to do with Thatcherism under Tony Blair, which has little to do with Noam Chomsky. In fact, they don't really have much to do with each other, really. But they are all eminent authors/politicians who have written/practised neoliberalism and which other eminent people have looked at and said "that is neoliberalism" and "that is what you should look at to understand it".

This lead me to realise that any attempt to define neoliberalism is imperilled because picking any definition of neoliberalism excludes the others automatically, and this leads to bias which leads to a bad article. Arguing about this article is also becomes pointless, since it is true that, by excluding some definitions, the claim "this is not neoliberalism" will always be true, and debates will happen, and happen again, and everyone will get nowhere really fast and with lots of vigour, because every side is right and arguing at cross-purposes.

However, because I believe that any set of views can be rationalised and unified into a coherent argument no matter how contradictory they seem at first (and this, this is a challenge, if ever I met one), what I've tried to do is present and define all the strands of neoliberalism as accurately as possible so we can all agree about what we're talking about when we decide what we agree on, and what we disagree on. More importantly, I also want to show why what they have in common, how they link to each other and why they all, in the final reckoning, deserve to be in this article. Even if no one wants it to go in the article, it might help other people make more rational decisions about bias and avoid the same old arguments, and I would consider that worthwhile.

Aphenine (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It’s a very ambitious proposal and I see you worked on it for close to a year. It may be good independent research. I’m afraid the ambiguity and confusion over the term “neo-liberal” is out there ... where people use the word. That, sadly, is what the Boas and Gans-Morse study shows. I don’t think we can resolve how the term should be used. What do other people think?

Here’s another proposal for everyone to mull over. I suggest we need an article on economic liberalization in the post-war (post WWII) era. This should be fairly uncontroversial since it is a factual description of liberalization in the world economies. This avoid the classification problem as to whether they are liberal, neo-liberal, mixed economy, laissez-faire, welfare state, crony capitalist, Keynsian regulated macro-regulated, supply-side stimulated, IMF-controlled, etc. Much of the current article is just such a description.

After taking out the post-war history, the neo-liberalism article would just be a small article on the terminology and its changing usage -- since Walter Lippman’s first use of the term to the critics of today. Details about Hayek should be in the Hayek article. Same for Friedman, von Mises, etc. What do people think? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Brilliant.--MeUser42 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

AGREE. The job of WP is not to find a way to 'define neoliberalism', even in an article on neoliberalism. The job of WP is to reflect what the published reliable material says about neoliberalism, even if that entails multiple definitions. We sum up human knowledge here, but do not attempt to add to it. If different reliable and respected authors say different things, then the article must also say different things if it is to be a good article. The article does not have to avoid self-contradiction if the human knowledge on this topic contradicts itself. Neoliberalism features enormously and extensively in academic literature, it is therefore highly notable as what is considered by many, if not most to be the prevailing economic and political philosophy of our time, and the article therefore has to reflect the amount that is written about it and the diversity of the ways it is written about, otherwise the literature is misrepresented. Riversider (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Reversider is of course completely correct. I would add that in such a case where contradictory definitions of a term are used by different people an article on the subject must be careful to use the term in the context of an attribution to a speaker of a class thereof.MeUser42 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I spent over a year on this because it was interesting and because I like to be certain of something before I try to publish. It took me over a year to expose myself to the various viewpoints and come to a decision on how to explore them and structure them. After that the section needed a few iterations in order for me to make mistakes and figure out what I didn't know and then correct them as far as I was able to on my own.

Can I try to sum up what's been said (because I am very confused by what you are trying to say)?

a) Apparently, you all absolutely agree that the divergent views and definitions of neoliberalism are a problem in writing this article, and you have agreed in principle that this needs to be changed, including contradictory ideas if necessary.

b) You disagree, however, in presenting the ideas as a definition, much like I've done. You don't believe it's our job to define anything, just reflect the views that are out there.

c) Despite this, MeUser42 has made the valid point that any article with divergent and contradictory viewpoints loses clarity unless you find some way to differentiate the different viewpoints.

d) Additionally, there is an extra proposal to move the examples of neoliberalism out of the article and into a separate article, leaving this solely as a short article on the changing meaning of neoliberalism.

Have I got that right? Aphenine (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, there are two different objects that have to be distinguished:

1. A political movement in the middle of the 20th century to renew liberalism, that is associated with events like Colloque Walter Lippmann and Mont Pelerin Society and names like Friedrich Hayek, Walter Eucken, Alexander Rüstow, Wilhelm Röpke, Henry Simons and Milton Friedman.
2. A political catchphrase that is used without specific definition to criticize liberal attitudes.

(Neoliberalism#Terminology)

Both objects should be illustrated in the article but seperated. --Obzova (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Those two criteria provide a bad sort for neoliberalism for too many reasons for me to go into. Have you read the section I wrote (what this talk section is about)? I would hope that, having read it, it would be self evidently clear why these are bad sort criteria. If not, I can explain. -- Aphenine (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The job of WP is not to discover anything new, but to describe what is already known. So we can record the different definitions of neoliberalism that exist, we cannot attempt to come up with some novel synthesis of these different definitions. If this leads to 'lack of focus', that is not a problem for the article, it is a problem for those writing the literature we rely on who have yet to come up with a common understanding of the phenomenon. An article on the changing meaning of neoliberalism would need to be titled "Changing meaning of neoliberalism". This article is titled "neoliberalism" which implies that it will inform people about everything notable and from reliable sources that is known about neoliberalism. There is a vast wealth of material that WP would describe as reliable and authoritative, including thousands of peer reviewed articles in academic journals using and describing the term neoliberalism, WP has to reflect this. Riversider (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposel made by Jason from nyc of having a small terminology article linking to a separate article about the privitization seems to me the clearest and most fair, as it does not involve the imposition of labels which the subjects themselves might have rejected, and certainly never used. --MeUser42 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the proposal and strongly support it, with the caveat that we would need to write up a suitable article before we remove it. I've noticed that, in articles where everyone is unsure of the bias, writers tend to get very factual in order to allow the reader to decide for themselves what they think the article means, and this acts as a safety valve for bias in the article. Therefore, to avoid aggravating the general public, I suggest the removal of the liberalisation section is left in until everyone is happy. Ascribing motives to real world liberalisations is a world of hurt that no sane person would want to get into. However, one or two examples might be uncontroversial enough to be left and included, since real world examples are always good.

What I can't get a handle on is how the remaining article will look like and what part (if any), the text I have put up for consideration (and the ideas behind it) will play in this. For example, does the talk about labels only apply to adding those labels into the liberalisation examples, or does it apply to the whole article, and is therefore a criticism of what I've written. Does the fact that WP is supposed to reflect all writing about neoliberal ideas function as a criticism of the fact that I had to be a little creative in christening the different types of neoliberalism in my expanded definition in order to be clear, or is it a criticism of the pervasive bias that leads to people consistently trying to promote one definition over all others. I'm honoured and grateful that I've managed to start a huge discussion, but the discussion has crossed over so thoroughly with what I originally asked in this section that I'm just totally lost. Could we branch out jason from nyc's excellent suggestion into another thread, and do one for the original topic of this section, please? Aphenine (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Aphenine, all of what you wrote should be incrementally merged to the existing article, this produces the best result, as the software industry learned. This produces far superior results then mega-projects developed in isolation. Don't be afraid to make mistakes in the main article. I will help, but I'm not sure how to technically start the split. Who can help here? Jason from nyc? --MeUser42 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry and you are right about getting too far ahead of myself. I like iterative development too, as I used to program, and I deliberately wrote most of the section iteratively. You can see it in the history. Because of this, there are answers to questions like "why five types of neoliberalism?" which I can only answer "because five works, four did not, six might still be needed." I worry, because this subject is so controversial and people have such strong opinions, that any changes I make, though, are going to get questioned, and then I'm going to have to defend myself, and if my only answer is "because it works", I'm not sure how happy that's going to make people. I can remember some of the thoughts I had in making the decisions I did, so I was hoping for some criticism from people who have some knowledge and a general interest in producing a good article (i.e. regulars on the talk page). You lot are a much friendlier bunch, and your objections are likely to be based on actual understanding of the topic. Having said that, this week might not have been the best week for that, because I have an evil cold that is refusing to go away, and I don't think I can deal with any criticism at all while it stubbornly clings on. *sigh*, I do not do ill gracefully.

I want to get some feedback from other sources first, but I could start on the splitting if you would like me too, when I start making changes to the article proper. If that would be OK? -- Aphenine (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my idea. I've been swamped with work and haven't had time to help out. It looks like we have some fair-minded and dedicated editors here. I'm confident you guys (and gals) will do a good job. If I have time I'll try to add my two cents.Jason from nyc (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Aphenine, I think that's very good. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Rebalancing

I've done parts 1 and 2 of the last section.

For number 2, you can see the new article at Economic liberalization in the post-war (post WWII) era, if you're interested. I gave it a quick introduction and also added something about West Germany at the end of WW2 since that's the only liberalisation I know that happened between the end of WW2 and the 1970s wave. Since the new article definitely mentioned post-WW2, I couldn't leave that out. There needs to be some way to link from here to that article, but I haven't figured out a natural way to do that yet.

This leaves number 3, rebalancing. I have two new proposals for the rest of this article that I'd like to discuss. They maybe controversial, so these I want discussed before I'll touch the article any more. Aphenine (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The first proposal is to take the description of the Washington Consensus in the Policy implications section and move it under policy in the Classical Neoliberal section, completely removing the leading paragraph. I believe that would be the best place for it to go and the Washington Consensus ideas strike me as more classical than economic. I know that often they've been interpreted in an economically liberal way and that this would make putting them in the classical section a matter of bias. However, I think the bias would balance out with an accompanying section in the corrupted neoliberalism which talks about how the Washington Consensus has been cherry picked, or the Economic Neoliberalism section could have a policy part of its own, mentioning the Washington Consensus and the economic interpretation. - Aphenine (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The second proposal I have is to remove the Support and Opposition sections, or to change them in some way. I get the feeling that they are a response to the innate bias in the article. The idea was seems to have been that, if the article is biased, it could only be fixed by adding more bias in the opposite way. The Expanded definition section talks about much of the same issues without making any attempt at judgement, so my thought is that they may have outlived their usefulness and that's why I propose they be removed, or something done to make them useful again. Any thoughts? - Aphenine (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the weight of this article (criticisms ext.) belong in the economic liberalism and capitalism articles, not here. What's historic should be moved to historic articles, and this should focus around how the term is used in all kinds of ways. My humble opinion. I think it's a more maintainable and logical structure. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Differences between Washington Consensus here and in the eponymous article

The list of ten points between this article under Policy Implications and the Washington Consensus articles have some differences which seem to be significant to my non-expert eye. Particularly interesting is point 7:

Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment; -- Washington Consensus

Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country -- this article

However, a quote included on Washington Consensus from Williamson, the author:

"I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization (...I quite consciously excluded that), monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas. If that is how the term is interpreted, then we can all enjoy its wake, although let us at least have the decency to recognize that these ideas have rarely dominated thought in Washington and certainly never commanded a consensus there or anywhere much else..."

Given the clarity of the quotation above, I have changed point 7 in Policy Implications to be consistent with the Washington Consensus article, but perhaps someone with more area knowledge could expand this point to make it clear that neoliberalism includes capital account liberalization as part of its understanding of the Washington Consensus.

--Tommy.rousse (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Extreme critic of neoliberalism

1. People who have put him and his statement in a documentary definitely do take him seriously enough.

2. I have only presented his view on neoliberalism, I didn't endorse it or promote it.

Since the topic is opposition and criticism of neoliberalism I have put his view as an example of an extreme and recent critic of neoliberalism.

3. If You have an example of an extreme endorsement, praise, compliment, approval of neoliberalism I don't see a reason why it should not be mentioned too.

After all, at least I am liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.64.17 (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Accused of corruption without any evidence or even discussion and then undone. My entry I mean.

Stalin would be proud.93.138.80.62 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation

Ok, I've had some time to get feedback from other people and I'm going to start carrying out the changes agreed in the last section. This section exists so that I can write out what I'm thinking. The idea being in a crowd-sourced environment, if you see what I am thinking and you can see the grand master plan, then you can work with me on it, or carry on if something were to happen to me and I couldn't finish. It also provides a chance to discuss and disagree before major changes get committed, or just revert and start again if there's a better way of doing it that suggests itself halfway through.

I think I'll start with stating the aim of the reorganisation. The aim is to change this article to recognise that there is not one single type of neoliberalism but many, and to reflect this diversity in this article in an unbiased and accurate way.

So far, the plan for this involves:

1. Merge the changes I have been working on in a consistent way and subject them to popular edit.
2. Separate out the examples of neoliberalism, since it's impossible to say what kind of neoliberalism or even liberalism they correspond to without resorting to bias.
3. Rebalance the article after the previous changes have been made.

The next bit talks about issues relating to creating a diverse article I came across in when I was writing the changes I'm proposing to merge into the article.

Definition vs Terminology

I thought long and hard about how to reflect the different ways neoliberalism is perceived, and I thought that a definition would work best. I thought this would work best because there are lots of terms used to describe the various forms of neoliberalism. Some of them do not use the word neoliberalism at all, but other terms, and sometimes the same term is used for different forms of neoliberalism. This makes it horrendously confusing to write anything about neoliberalism. Writing a definition avoids that entirely. Instead of worrying what people call neoliberalism, it's possible to infer what people meant when it's used and create a self-consistent definition for whatever is being discussed. Much pain is avoided. Terminology is also implies a linguistic element, which would be fun to look at, the changing evolution of the term and the like, but I'm no good at that and I think it would be complicated.

What constitutes a definition of Neoliberalism?

One of the huge problems with doing things with definitions is that there is very little independent research into the different types of neoliberalism. There are very few sources that I've been able to find that provide any acknowledgement of the difference and fewer that even bother to identify the different types. How does anyone decide what constitutes a definition of neoliberalism? It worried me in an article that is supposed to be unbiased and crowd-sourced, someone, somewhere is providing a definition of neoliberalism and controlling the article. This is bad. So I came up with the following criteria:

1. A definition of neoliberalism must be called neoliberalism by a person (or a group of people) who are notable. It must be verifiable that they have called it neoliberalism.
2. A definition of neoliberalism must be logically inconsistent with another definition of neoliberalism.

You'll notice the section I wrote obeys those rules. The only exception is that economic neoliberalism is not logically distinct from philosophical or hybrid neoliberalism, but they are logically distinct from it. If you understand programming, then they are sub-classes of economic neoliberalism. I separated them in order to make the text easier to follow and put the links in the text, not in the way the section headings are arranged, in order not to get too many subheadings, but there's no reason it can't be changed if someone wants to. Each definition also hopefully makes itself clear about why it is distinct from another one.

Also, once something is identified as neoliberalism, I then go to sources that are associated, even if they haven't been directly called neoliberalism by anyone. I don't have a problem with this, because it's logically consistent, but others might.

So why five forms of neoliberalism?

So far, the changes I'm proposing to merge have five forms of neoliberalism in the. There is no reason why there are five. So far, five works well and they obey the rules. As far as I know, I've included every thing that has been called neoliberalism by notable people. There is no reason there can not be more, although I strongly doubt there can be less, because I really can't make them fit together logically, although other people are welcome to try. I have been wondering whether to include a sixth to include libertarian forms of neoliberalism, which argue that economic neoliberalism can be done without any form of state at all using standard libertarian arguments, but I'm still on the fence on that one.

Isn't this original research?

This is worrying me a lot. There are very few sources on classifying neoliberalism that I've been able to find. I may be wrong, but I've taken that to mean there aren't any, and therefore any attempt to rely solely on sources and verifiable material to do this is doomed to failure. So Wikipedians have to do that themselves, which could be considered original research. However, if Wikipedians don't do this, it's impossible to make the article unbiased and neutral, which is also against Wikipedia rules. So I've taken the view that maintaining NPOV is more important and the least of evils. I don't know if that would be a universal view, though. Maybe I shouldn't be worrying about this, as I just found the Wikipedia Be Bold statement and the Wikipedia Does Not Have Firm Rules principle.

Frankly I think it is original research. I also think it is excellent. You need to submit an article describing your categorisation of the different aspects of neoliberalism to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal, or find a way of publishing them in a book. Then we could use them as a structure for the article without having to look over our shoulders. It's great work, but I think the anonymous forum of Wikipedia should not be the first place you share this work. You should get the recognition you deserve for it by publishing in paper publications first. Riversider (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the definition section written by Aphenine is good and am glad to see it included in the main article. I disagree with Riversider that your definition write-up is a form of "original research" that should be excluded. Anything that is not quoted material is technically original. But even acknowledging that there are degrees of "originality" I think you include enough citations to other research to call what you have done summary and review rather than original--you are basically summarizing much of what is known about different definitions of neoliberalism. While I think it is good enough to be included in the main article, relying on an even wider variety of sources (like, for instance, more of the Harvey book) would be one good way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ryry 74.96.46.26 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It clearly is original research, and is of very great quality, giving a unique clear perspective of various aspects of neoliberalism in a way that I've never seen made by anyone else. It's a novel synthesis. Having said that, I'm certainly not going to revert it. I just think it's a shame that the author will not receive the recognition they deserve for their thinking, which they would have done if they'd published in a conventional source first. Riversider (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources describing the contemporary phenomenon of neoliberalism; I really don't think the page is original research, although there may be some originality to the way it's organized. I'll try and sprinkle some sources in there. Groupuscule (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What's with the names?

I had to come up with section headings. Apart from classical and economic neoliberalism, I'm ashamed to admit I made them up. I couldn't see any way around it. Feel free to change them if it makes sense.

Aphenine (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Article now dominated by definitions section

Thanks for all of your work on this! But now it almost seems as though this could be a separate article. I feel as though a lot more needs to be done on the phenomenon itself, as opposed to the definition! IMO this is a really important topic that requires an accessible article. Groupuscule (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Groupuscule, you've hit on and clarified the problem that's been worrying me in a much less clearly formed way for a while. It's not the job of WP to define topics, WP is not a dictionary. Editors have been trying to solve problems with the definition of neoliberalism that are more properly the reserve of those who write the RS's we rely on. These problems are questions like: Is there a difference between 'neoliberal capitalism' and capitalism per se. Some imply that neoliberalism is distinct from other approaches to capitalism, such as 'responsible' 'green' and 'ethical' capitalism, while others suggest that these alternatives are wishful thinking, and neoliberal capitalism is the only kind you're going to get. Riversider (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Byelf2007's edits have been really good. I do still have a nagging feeling that, as per most popular usage, the core definition of neoliberalism is the philosophical idea that markets are the best way to organize social systems. This was previously described (I assume by Aphenine) as "philosophical neoliberalism"--then I changed it to "expansive neoliberalism," in contrast with "limited neoliberalism"... but actually, I think this should just be the definition. Maybe the history of the term dictates something else, but I don't understand how that something else is meaningfully different from laissez-faire capitalism, or liberalism.

I don't want to eliminate all of this work too hastily. Seeking other opinions! Groupuscule (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Key thing to remember is the boundaries of our task as WP editors. Our role is to accurately reflect what the balance of published sources says on a topic. If the published sources contradict each other, we're not required to reconcile them. If published definitions are inadequate, we're not required to improve them. The task of reflecting what authoritative published sources say while maintaining NPOV is large enough without trying to come up with something 'better' than the published sources. The thousands of published sources in respected academic literature demonstrate that this is a notable topic, so we should stand firm on the length and detail included in the article, it's a notable enough historical and economic phenomenon to justify this. Riversider (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True & I agree but are there actually 'multiple definitions' here? The first/original definition mentioned in the "classical section" actually seems to agree with the "expansive" definition, in terms of the "priority of the price mechanism." Is there actually a flavor of "neoliberalism" that doesn't suggest that the price mechanism is a good way to organize social relations, including those that are currently public/governmental?

Thorsen & Lie is the most/only substantial source in the "limited neoliberalism" section, and based on my quick reading of the article, they also seem to think that a hardcore commitment to market rationality in public life is the core. Now, even with this as the core, there are still different interpretations: the article talks about consequentialism vs. deontology as distinct reasons for believing in neoliberalism (and, reasonably, causes for distinct degrees of embracing it. But, IMO the core concept is still the same, and we should build around it.

This is actually already the concept we have as the intro to the article. So I guess all I really think we need is a re-structuring of these two sections now called "Schools." Still not sure what the best strategy would be to do that. Groupuscule (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Agree with decision to reinstate terminology section—perhaps this could absorb more from "schools." Groupuscule (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Effects of neoliberalism on developing countries

I think we need a section on accounts the effects of neoliberalism on 'developing' / 'third world' / 'ex-colonial' countries (role of World Bank, IMF etc). There's a whole section of literature out there on this aspect of the topic that we've not yet represented adequately in the substantive text, and it's a sizeable proportion of humanity to miss out. Riversider (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "Policy Implications" -> "Policies"; then add a section on "Applications" subdivided by country (or region), which can also discuss the 'faithfulness' of the application? Groupuscule (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly "neoliberalism in contemporary society" needs to be rethought also; partly as "neoliberalism in the United States," and partly as a section on domains of application... health care, education etc. Groupuscule (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Non neutral language

As in the Policy implications section. If anyone has the time. --MeUser42 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved Harvey block quote up, to act as an introduction to the section Schools of neoliberalism, which addresses the neutrality concern by making the policy sentence pointless, thus allowing removal. --Abel (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Astonishing fabrication evident on this page

It is flabbergasting how the editors of this page have contrived to construct an argument validating the term 'neoliberalism' when even Harvey and Steger & Roy, listed in the references section but obviously not read very thoroughly by anyone editing this page, clearly state that any such validity must be so inclusive that it could refer to almost any form of economics or politics someone wishes to attack.

What economists and politicians openly declare themselves as neoliberals? If defining features of neoliberalism are so broad that they include elements of every policy in the Western world since WWII, the term is useless as a description of anything at all, and unworthy of all this astonishing collection of trivia, except, perhaps, as a mention about a term latched onto by news media and the international left to refer to something they couldn't really explain.

The bottom line here is that this article also does nothing at all to explain neoliberalism, rather than attempting to suggest that elements of right wing politics and neoclassical economics have been condensed into a nonexistent conspiracy by a shadowy group called neoliberals who no one can point to.

This is why I don't edit at Wikipedia very often any more: the zeal to make something out of nothing has overtaken rationality and any pretense at pursuing encyclopaedic endeavours. Good luck with this ridiculous fabrication. It serves as an example why Wikipedia's credibility is declining steadily. Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Peter. Please assume good faith! Editors have not attempted to 'validate' the term neoliberalism. They have attempted to reflect what at least 90 RS's have said about neoliberalism. It's not WP's job to prove or disprove the truth of the sources it uses. If those sources are peer reviewed or by leading experts in the field, then they are seen as 'authoritative' (which means something subtly different from 'true'). If you dispute the very existence of 'neoliberalism' then your dispute is with each of those 90 sources, rather than with any of the editors who have simply and assiduously attempted to reflect what those sources say, in line with WP policies. A few of those sources are indeed from 'news media', others may well be from the 'international left', others still are from highly respected academics who are leading experts in their respective fields. I don't believe the word 'conspiracy' occurs anywhere in the article. If you have access to sources that dispute the existence of neoliberalism or the assertions of any of those 90 sources, then your input in terms of including information from those sources to correct any perceived imbalance in the article will be valued. Riversider (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

1st time. Hope I don't mess this up.
A note about credibility in introduction.
In regards to the previous criticism by peterstremple, it might be that the introduction includes a preponderance of examples that perhaps stand in support of Neoliberal ideals. Several are offered before the first citation. A short paragraph summing up criticisms of the concept are paraphrased above two citations! This comes across as lopsided. More balance might be sought for the introduction of such a controversial topic.
Also, using terms such as 'nanny state' and 'dead-hand' without a link to definitions and history can create the interpretation that these are code-words for certain political discourse, which might also lead to the perception of bias. And on a related note the term New Right seemed so striking that it certainly should have an entry and a link of its own.
Lastly, on an editorial note, I did not understand the usage of the word 'enforces' in the sentence, 'Neoliberals envision individuals primarily as market participants, and states as enforces for markets.' I'm not sure if this is a typo that should be 'enforcer'.
I hope this helps. Keep on trucking! 79.52.120.211 (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

[decided my comment wasn't helpful and deleted it 71.205.142.149 (talk)] 71.205.142.149 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Claim that neoliberalism is part of "mainstream economics" is POV-pushing, say instead that it's "a prominent economic theory"

The claim in the intro that neoliberalism is part of "mainstream economics" is extremely POV. What does "mainstream" mean? How does neoliberalism apply to governments that oppose neoliberalism like social democratic governments? I suggest that that sentence be changed to say that neoliberalism is "a prominent economic theory utilized in many capitalist economies". That is more precise is not POV-pushing.--R-41 (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Neoliberalism was incorporated into mainstream economics some time ago. --Abel (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like POV, what does the article mean by "mainstream"? By "mainstream", it seems to be legitimizing neoliberalism as the "natural" or "normal" economic system of the world while other economic systems are "unnatural" or "abnormal".--R-41 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In economics, mainstream is a school. --Abel (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the phrase was introduced to replace a RS'd sentence that described neoliberalism as a 'hegemonic' ideology or 'paradigm'. The phrase 'neoliberal paradigm' occurs in many many RS's, put quote marks round it and Google it. Maybe in an attempt to water down a well-sourced phrase, the editor in question has inadvertently substituted a far more POV sentence. Riversider (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is fairly biased against neoliberalism. As a school of thought that is supported by the majority of mainstream economists, it at least warrants equal amounts of support and criticism. In this article, criticism and examples of adverse effects in a small sample of countries (comprised almost exclusively of Latin American countries) are abundant and the benefits of market liberalization are ignored.

I believe this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.235.129 (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)