Talk:Neoliberalism

Angela Davis is not a sociologist at Berkeley. She is a professor in the History of Consciousness at UC-Santa Cruz. Katking 20:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:FAOL

Archive 1

I've cleaned up the formatting and removed the 'cleanup' tag. Does anybody know what the 'not verified tag' was referring to and whether or not it has been resolved?Calmandcollected 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

???

As neo-liberalism is the main ideology for the modern right-wing in nearly all the countries(and stop with your NPOV,we're not here to write nothing, cause every letter has a risk to hurt someone somewhere), im very surprised to see it shown as a "minor" "intellectual" theory?! It sounds more (not only to me, dear NPOV's, read some books from nobel prizes of economy and serious journalists),like the dominant ideology of the 21th century.... It has more influence, through USA (and allies)interventionism, through IMF, World bank and WTO, than communism, socialism or any ideology you ever thought of The delocalizations, and everyone knows what im talkin about, are a direct or indirect consequency of this wayt of thinking Unemployement, the same. It says "state must be powerless",so the power is given to those who have the money, and the countries of the north are just unable to protect their own citizens. We,"great industrialized countries", can kill everyone in earth with H bombs, but are unable to stop delocalizations? So there's something more powerful than states? What? Its more powerful than peoples, so, cause theorically we vote to choose who will control us? no? So i ask : why there's a great "hub-page" on wiki for communism, anarchism, socialism and etc.... but nothing for neo-liberalism? Because no-one say "im a one,im am a neo-liberalist!";"money is the power!","state is nothing!"? But its the same for national-socialists "kill the jews!", far-right people "bring 'em to work until they reach 90 years" and racists "i don't like niggas". Have you ever seen people telling this? But they're real,and there's a bit more documentation about them here..... Neo-liberalism is real too, and while they make the world like they want, we're here discussing about the names "neo-cons","neo-right","neo-liberalism","tchatcherism","bush-ism"...... Its a bunch all those streams, but, eventually, we don't care about the names, lets find a "convention name" for the new "washington consensus" right(cause its what we're talkin about, they all follow this text)and go people! Write long articles with analysis, criticism and meta-link to different aspect of the neo-liberalism theory Remember we're here to inform about the world, and this article is maybe one of the most important to understand it

PS:Sorry for the faults, im a damn french (yeah,with cheese), and for my political opinions, i think that you guessed :D This has to be done, that you like this ideology or not.

This appears to be a section for rants. My turn.

The word "neoliberal" doesn't appear to be widely used outside of Marxism and anti-globalisationism. In it's anti-globalisationist context "neoliberalism" appears to have ended up with the meaning: conventional economic theory. A little bit like how homeopaths use the word "allopathy" in a pejorative context vis a vis conventional medicine.

However, my point really is around the usage of the word. Shouldn't it be mentioned more specifically that the term "neoliberalism" is neither widely used nor widely understood? Isn't it more than just a little like "allopathy"? And shouldn't this be specifically mentioned? After all there's no point beating up a term which has no meaning in the real world. 192.30.92.238 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points to note. First, neoliberalism does not refer to conventional economic theory, but rather policies. This point seems to miss many readers of this article, even though it is written at its outset. Aside from free trade, you'd be hard pressed to find "conventional" economic literatures that push neoliberal policies. You might say that mainstream econ was taken with laissez-faire policy fifteen or twenty-five years ago, but this is hardly the case today. So, discussions of neoliberalism do not engage economists, but rather people (perhaps like you) who think that the kinds of policies discussed in this article remain mainstream consensus views. They are not. In fact, most economists are apparently slightly left-leaning their policy views.

Second, a search on the Web of Science reveals over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles mentioning neoliberalism. Many of these are in reputable poly sci, sociology, public admin and geography journals. Yes, some are in questionable journals, but you can say the same about laissez-faire policy views, which are generally pushed by lobbies and think tanks rather than peer-reviewed academic journals (again, besides free trade). Within the econ literature, they tend to split hairs and look at specific manifestations of these changes, but, within development econ, for example, it will be described generically as "reform" in the context of the late 80s or early 90s, or the "Washington Consensus".

BTW, "allopathy" is mentioned 32 times in the Web of Science, despite the fact could be potentially engaged by large, recent NIH projects. Allow me to emphasize the poverty of your comparison: 1,010 for neoliberalism vs. 32 for allopathy. A more appropriate comparison with alternative medicine would be "St. John's Wort". By the way, neoliberalism is mentioned as much as "downsizing". If you want to make this case, you're going to have to do way better. -jncohen (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to question the "poverty" of my comparison, shouldn't we also look into the point that you raised about all references to neoliberalism in peer-reviewed journals, and that is this: economics itself is conspicuous by its absence.

Surely this renders your comparison moot? If we're going to accept the term as a valid term within economic theory (or merely "policies" which you assert) then shouldn't there be widespread acceptance within economics itself?

Your "allopathy" reference ("BTW, "allopathy" is mentioned 32 times in the Web of Science") is well intended, but comes across as a bit naive. If you didn't know that homeopaths (who use the term) don't acknowledge that the scientific method has any use, then I retract that comment. But I suspect that you knew all along. It doesn't exactly provide an appropriate comparison. 124.168.125.204 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please sign your Wikipedia entries. It's annoying to argue with someone who doesn't identify themself.

The term is not "absent" from economists' discussions. I did not say that economists don't use the term "neoliberalism". Offhand, I've seen Dani Rodrik use it, and remember pieces by Brad DeLong and John Williamson engaging the concept. I think that the latter was arguing against those who use the term, but your main point is that it is absent from these discussions, isn't it?

I said that economists tend to "split hairs" -- they look at the specific areas of policy concern that lie within their areas of specialization (e.g., exchange rate policies, the effects of specific types of policy changes (e.g., deregulation, privatization) on some specific economic outcome (like productivity or growth)). Does it matter that they many of them have used different terms, like "reform" or "Washington Consensus", for the same phenomenon? Why should it? We're all talking about the same phenomenon.

On your point, "If you didn't know that homeopaths (who use the term) don't acknowledge that the scientific method has any use..." Homeopaths do have peer-reviewed journals: it took me two minutes to find Homeopathy, the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine and Complementary Therapies in Medicine. This is without investing much effort at all. Unless you define a "homeopath" as someone who does not consult a peer-reviewed lit, then it appears that at least some of them are engaging the literature. Also, why not Google the terms {homeopathy "scientific breakthrough"} to see if homeopaths are as science-averse as you say? -jncohen (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not signing off on my suggestions, Jncohen. I'm not a registered editor due to my inability to construct a coherent sentence.

I suppose that I "split hairs" more than most on these issues, however, there are accepted terms in economics for what you're referring to, and, just like in science, economists really, really object to people from other disciplines coming in and telling them what they're thinking. Sadly, unlike science, economics doesn't have an Alan Sokal to put humanities undergraduates in their place.

That said, I have no objection to "umbrella terms", as you describe them, however, occupying a position on, for example, privatisation does not mean that one will automatically occupy a pre-determined position on trade protectionism. Also, my point remains - the term neoliberalism has no obvious or accepted meaning within economics. Your point about where "neoliberalism" is mentioned, economists are often strongly resisting the term kinda says it all.

Incidentally, with regards to homeopathy (and I promise that I won't mention it again), I could mention the following:

• that out of the journals you have mentioned, the term "peer-reviewed" appears to have been applied charitably, and their peer-review process would be frowned on at, say, the New England Journal of Medicine

• a Google search on "homeopathy scientific method" appears to confirm serious science-aversion, combined with general antipathy from scientists;

• a Google search on "do homeopaths consult peer-reviewed literature" appears to confirm the exact same thing; and

• a Google search on "prominent homeopaths scientific method" reveals some quotes that appear to place evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy outside the scientific method

...but we'll be at it all day.

I propose that we leave this in the hands of an independent umpire - James Randi. The James Randi Education Foundation has offered a USD $1 million prize to anyone who can demonstrate any type of efficacy of homeopathy for over 20 years under scientific examination. I'll accept that homeopathy embraces the scientific method if a homeopath has ever won the prize.

Cheers, Qwoj.192.30.92.238 (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The line of homeopathy is a red herring. I would give you this piece of advice -- be careful of any scientist, or body of scientists, who claim to have a monopoly of knowledge over a particular subject matter. Professional economists do not claim such a monopoly, and the good ones work across disciplines. It is usually the B-level economists who are concerned with territory, because their arguments from authority are all that they have. If people stop believing that their professional designation is enough for them to convey "truths" about economic life, they'll have nothing left. Also, be very wary of sweeping statements about what "economists say" -- they are actually a rather heterogeneous group.

Discussions about neoliberalism are not about economists, they are about politicians and ideologues. It is so hard to keep repeating this over and over and over again, but it just never sinks in. Here is a challenge to you or anyone who continues about this "economists say this or that" line of argumentation: I challenge you to find a serious, academic (not think tank) literature from the last ten years that says countries should embrace government cutbacks, deregulation, privatization, capital liberalization, welfare cutbacks or any other policy discussed in this article, besides free trade. In other words, try to find a serious, ongoing dialog that takes place among economists from serious research universities about laissez-faire as unambiguously beneficial. If you go beyond an undergraduate economics text, you will not find it. Economists just don't approach their subject matter spouting off absolutes like that. However, you hear right-wing politicians say that "markets are proven to work" and that "governments are wasteful and inefficient". When you have trouble finding that statement made unambiguously by a community of serious academic economists, ask yourself where these ideas come from. Discussions about neoliberalism are about these often-repeated, ultimately non-scientific, statements about economic policy, and how, over the 1980s and 1990s, people believed that this was economic truth.-jncohen (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I'm going to get this back on track. Homeopathy is not so much a red herring - it's your straw man. "Allopathy" was the analogy I was making. And it's a good one.

2. You wrote this:

I would give you this piece of advice -- be careful of any scientist, or body of scientists, who claim to have a monopoly of knowledge over a particular subject matter.

This is both way condescending, and a particularly nasty Galileo gambit. I would give you this piece of advice: Stop it. You know how you are coming across.

3. You wrote this:

Professional economists do not claim such a monopoly, and the good ones work across disciplines.

This is a no true Scotsman's fallacy.

4. You wrote this:

It is usually the B-level economists who are concerned with territory, because their arguments from authority are all that they have.

Methinks you doth protest too much - poisoning the well and, unironically, an argument from authority.

5. You then wrote this:

If people stop believing that their professional designation is enough for them to convey "truths" about economic life, they'll have nothing left.

- Now that's a red herring. It also tells me quite a bit about you.

I'm going to stop here and lecture you for a change. All your talk about the term neoliberalism applying only to economic policies is rubbish: I have personally copped two lectures in two weeks from two separate friends of mine who loosely align themselves with groups that love to use the term neoliberalism. One (who is an arts student and an anarchist) suggested that I had been "sucked in by neoliberalism" for suggesting that prices were fixed by the interaction between supply and demand.

Another, a Marxist and engineering student, suggested to me that limiting inflation by lifting interest rates through a central bank is supposedly classic neoliberalism.

Sorry, buddy, these are not economic policies. These are fundamental economic tenets, almost. Up there with "a need is not a want".

Prior to this, I had never heard the term before, and I'm a final year accounting student. I asked around and the only person I could find who had heard the term was someone who had studied some first-year political science.

By the way, your last paragraph was almost entirely POV silliness and rampant straw. If neoliberalism is not aimed at economics, then for heaven's sake, people should stop bringing economics into it. Trade, government spending, supply and demand, public accounting, monetary policy - these are ECONOMIC concepts. They might have a political tint, but then again, my first year macroeconomics lecturer once described politics as "applied economics" in his opinion, anyway. Qwoj.124.168.125.204 (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Change the Organization

This article seems to describe "free market" completely, not some new term "neo-liberalism". In particular, the description specifies very OLD ideas which are not specifically liberal ideas, and not particularly aligned with 'liberal' people or groups. There doesn't seem to be any alternate equivalent to "neo-conservativism" in American political talk. Even if there was some sort of 'neo-liberal' phrase in use, it surely would not mean 'free market' to us, as those ideas are seen as conservative. If this phrase actually has some definite meaning in Germany or europe, maybe a redirection to their foriegn language page is appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ace Frahm (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

It seems to me that the problem with the article as you note is not a problem with the article necessarily, but simply a technical problem where neoliberalism can be interpreted from different perspectives and remains a fundamentally new worldview that even scholarly literature has yet to fully grasp and define effectivley. For example, whether you are talking about Bill Clinton or Margaret Thatcher, they might both be characterized as neoliberal in economic terms, but the end to their means are very different politically. For this reason, I do not believe it should be deleted, but simply clarified and reworked if possible. --Kenneth M Burke 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct about clarity. We need to say that "neoliberalism" is an economic concept that contrasts with a "command economy", and should not be mistaken as an antonym for the politcal concept of "neoconservative" right? --Ace Frahm 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Command economy" is too broad and imprecise a designation for the antonym of "neoliberalism". Start with historical specifics: neoliberalism historically is a rejection of Keynesianism. As an historical decline in class compromise on the part of capital during an historical period of high capital mobility--implicating decreased state autonomy--its political-economic model has spread to replace other capitalist economy mixes. It is a rejection of socialism, and it is an historically-specific reassertion of laissez faire liberalism. To sum, neoliberalism is not just an economic program. It is a political project as well: Where Margaret Thatcher assures/threatens us, "there is no alternative".

To the extent that that political-economic relationship violates the assumptions of certain disciplinary perspectives only shows that "neoliberal" is not a concept that's home territory lies in those communities, and so those external communities should not be looked to to provide the definition of "neoliberal", but rather the arguments against.

This Wiki page should definitely NOT be deleted, as "neoliberal" has a definite meaning--including discussions of historical variants--among critical communities in the U.S. as well as in Europe, whether or not this is true among your particular friends, or in your particular discipline, and even if it is a politically-contested concept.

I think that Ace's comment also gestures to the fact that "neoliberal" is not a term anyone would give themselves; since neoliberalism can be considered a successful hegemonic project, its proponents want to normalize it. "Neoliberal" is rather a critical concept. Therefore, I propose that the views of the critics of neoliberalism be taken out of the "Opponents" ghetto section at the end of the entry and incorporated in the main body of the page. That Opponents section would more properly befit the views of people who are proponents of neoliberalism or who deny it exists.

neoliberalism is a label

None of the authors cited as inspirers or proponents of "neoliberalism", not even their followers have ever used the word. It is a label used by marxists, mainly in Spain and Argentina, to denigrate liberal policies by calling them something else. In the US this label is not used at all, since "liberalism" there has changed it's 19th century meaning to one approaching socialism or progressivisim.--Flix2000 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have never seen anyone describe himself as a neoliberal. However, the term is used by many more people than just Marxists, Spaniards, and Argentines, and it is used widely in the US among the left-wing. To cite one example, Noam Chomsky wrote a decent-selling book about neoliberalism with "neoliberalism" in the title, which I have read, and he is not a Marxist, Spaniard, or Argentine, but an American libertarian socialist. So I am going to rephrase the sentence on this topic in the article. Organ123 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Few tyrannical dictators would label themselves as such -- does that mean tyranny and dictatorships don't exist. -jncohen 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky is not a marxist? That is a surprise. Maybe you should read something by him. If that is your reason I'm reverting. As to Spain and Argentina, maybe I should have said "specially" instead of "mainly".--Flix2000 08:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Or just read his wikipedia entry: "he describes himself as a libertarian socialist" I think we can agree that socialism and marxism are slightly related...

Please let's have a calm discussion. I have read nine books by Chomsky as well as dozens of articles and videos. I've actually read Chomsky explaining in detail why he is not a Marxist. Libertarian socialism is much more similar to anarchism than it is to Marxism. But Chomsky is not the only one. There's also Jeff Faux, a prominent left-wing US economist with no associations with Marx, whose new book The Global Class War uses the term neoliberalism. The US anti-globalization movement, which first became well-known at the 1999 Seattle protests, is rooted in anarchism, but uses the term neoliberal. The World Social Forum this year, which gathered tens of thousands of anti-capitalists of all flavors in Kenya, uses the word "neo-liberal" on its main "about" web page. (http://wsf2007.org/info/about). I'm trying to get across that the term is used widely among the left. So instead of Marxist, I used "left-wing," which is more general. Organ123 16:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree on the marxist take (I've read chomsky too and have no doubts that he IS marxist to the core in his history and in his world view, just 'coz he does not subscribe revolutionary communism, it does not mean he does not believe in class struggle) I accept "left wing", if you feel it's more accurate..--Flix2000 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just found a counterexample to the initial argument in this section -- there are at least two prominent individuals (see below) who consider themselves neoliberals, and they (Pollack and Asmus) were published here in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A26009-2003Jul21 According to them: "Neoliberals, among whom we number ourselves, believe in political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort." "Ronald D. Asmus is senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Kenneth M. Pollack is director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. Both served in the Clinton administration."

So for accuracy, I am going to have to change the opening paragraph. Organ123 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about "neoliberalism" the diplomatic school. Not the same, there is a completely different wiki on that.--Flix2000 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC) see "international relations" it really has nothing at all in common.

First, for what it's worth, I am talking about "neoliberalism" the political philosophy. As I see it, the people I mentioned above identify themselves with a political philosophy called neoliberalism, a philosophy which I believe this page is concerned with addressing. They call themselves neoliberals and describe how their philosophy differs from neoconservatism, another political philosophy. This page has a box on the right side about the "politics" series, of which this article is a part. Neoliberalism in international relations does not encompass the broad political definition of neoliberalism the way this page should. My main issue is with the sentence: "It is a label used by marxists, mainly in Spain and Argentina, to denigrate liberal policies by calling them something else." I believe I have demonstrated that "neoliberalism" is not merely a label, not used merely by Marxists, and not used merely to denigrate liberal policies. I would love if somebody else could join in on this discussion. Organ123 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about. I have also read what Ron D. Asmus (of the Center for MIDDLE EAST POLICY at Brookings, who worked for Clinton- NOT a philosophical neoliberal) says. I accepted your corrections about Spain and Argentina, I accepted (disagreeing, but for the sake of compromise) your correction on marxism. I certainly don't accept your implication that the term is used as anything but a label. I really cannot waste any more time correcting your changes. If you want to knowingly distort the truth, feel free, it'll be on your conscience.--Flix2000 09:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I tried to fix what I think is not the truth to something that I think is the truth, in accordance with the "good faith" policy. But to avoid a revert war, I will let other people change the "negative label" description instead. Organ123 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Red Grouper 12:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC) I want to say first of all that I am not an expert in politics. However, I find the use of the term neoliberalism very frustrating. It is used regularly in the newspaper The Guardian as a way of instantly discrediting anybody with whom their columnists take issue. The term is based on a flawed analysis and misinterpretation of the views and values of libertarians, conservatives, and even people on the left who might think that market place may have something to offer. It is a very typical strategy used by many on the left to frame the agenda of any discussion in terms which are advantageous to them. The best strategy in a discussion is to insist that this language is taken off the table and that people are allowed to describe their own philosophies in their own terms.

In Political Science neoliberalism is understood as an ideology, not just a set of economic policies, because of its explicitly moral claim that markets will yeild the fairest distribution of goods, the expansion of freedom, and the prosperity of all who value it. These rely on widespread but contestable notions of the individual, of value and of freedom. The people who popularized it described themselves as neoliberals (See the German version).

However, it obviously gets used in other ways, particularly as a label and as a description just of the economic policies which it demands. Would it be OK to decribe it as a philosophy, and then also discuss the other (derivative) ways in which it is used. David Harvey's (admittedly polemic) 'brief history of neoliberalism' might be a useful starting place.

Also, we clearly need to address the fact that it isn't used in the US and that 'liberal' means something else. For the record, I would describe large swathes of Clinton and Bush's policies as neoliberal.

As regards being a label, (I'm from the UK and read the newspaper in question) its usage in political debate tends to imply a myopic view of value (ie the market values the time of our footballers more highly than that of our nurses); of human nature (Adam Curtis's recent documentary series 'the trap' would be a good example of this usage); and sometimes a form of allegiance with the owners of financial capital who are held to benefit most from neoliberal inspired economic reforms. It seems useful to highlight this in the article.

--81.154.27.117 12:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)UK Politics Student

That sounds fine to me. I think it would be nice to have a nuanced description of the term that accounts for the various ways in which people use it. If you're going to write it up, then I suggest using as many footnotes and quotes as possible to avoid having it reverted. Organ123 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'm busy until mid-June but will have a go then if it still hasn't been improved. I've got Harvey's book and God knows how many others on the subject so citations shouldn't be an issue! -UK Politics Student--81.154.27.235 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The German version of this page rocks.

I took a look at the German version based on the advice of the box at the top of this page, and discovered that it is quite good. You can view a translated version of it here [1] or the original version here. I would like to incorporate elements of the German page into our English page. Organ123 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I'll start doing bits and pieces. InSpace 07:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

These things need to be done under History of Neoliberalism:

(1) Write a paragraph or two on the Marginal Revolution lineage of neoliberalism and the development of the Austrian School (The Marginal Revolution & Carl Menger -->von Mises-->von Hayek).

(2) Quickly discuss the role of the London School of Economics in gestating neoliberalism.

(3) The University of Chicago gave right-wing thinkers academic jobs while they were funded by private capitalist organizations. Look up the history of how von Hayek and others were recruited to the University of Chicago and funded handsomely while Keynesianism was still ascendant (around 1940-1980). Include a paragraph about this, clarifying which part of U.S. capital was funding and recruiting these particular gentlemen to the University of Chicago School and for what purpose--including how this served as a pillar of the the U.S. conservative movement after the oil crisis, why Chicago, what happened to bring the neoliberals out of the periphery of economic orthodoxy and into setting economic orthodoxy worldwide. That will give you a strong historical footing and clarity for this article. I'm forgetting where this discussion is at the moment, but you should be able to find this information in pertinent Political Sociology studies.

(4) Use the German "neoliberalism" page for the info to insert a sentence or two on the German group that called itself "Neoliberalismus" (or whatever). This is to establish the historical basis for the term itself.

(5) Show that historians of neoliberalism point to the political nature of the neoliberal economic orthodoxy. Describe the differences in (and political-economic conditions of) early political neoliberalism (Thatcher, Reagan, Mitterand, Kohl) and the second-generation neoliberalism (Clinton, Blair, Schroeder, the post-apartheid South Africans) as well as the subsequent hardline regress (Bush, Merkel, Sarkozy). I think you will need someone with something of a Marxist/Gramscian perspective to do this.

(4) Related to 3 above, clarify the relationship between neoliberalism and neoconservatism in the U.S.

Infoboxes

The infoboxes are awkward, does anyone know how to fix it so that it is not obtrusive to the formatting of the page?

If you mean the "Liberalism" infobox...I suggest removing it altogether. Despite the name, "neoliberalism" is actually conservative ideology. Redxiv 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, should it be listed in the conservatism template instead, and include ordoliberalism in that template as well? Intangible2.0 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the rest of the article?

I do remember this article having a lot more content then it does now, what happened? Or maybe Im imagining things. - anon

This article has been rolled back, apparently unilaterally, by 172 on Jan 30, 2007. There seems to be no clear rationale for it. What is the prevailing view on reconstructing some of the material cut out? jncohen

The old version was very diverse and informative in the sense that anyone reading it could make up their own minds as to what this controversial term is all about. Now what has happened is that someone from a very narrow political perspective has decided to censor all possible meanings in favor of a very narrow view of it as a term of left-wing abuse. The old page should be restored even though there was much there I disagreed with (see my own contribution A Brief History of Neoliberalism).(User:DHarvey)

Going through older versions and looking for good-quality snippets may be worthwhile. I can't go through it right now as I'm completely tied up with my dissertation defense. I don't think we should do a simple revert. In my view, the whole page should avoid either side of those old and tired, Cold War-style capitalism vs. its enemies polemic. If the next version is going to avoid NPOV issues, it might tackle this issue most fruitfully by discussing it as a debate over the practical philosophies that should guide economic policy debate. BTW, I enjoyed A Brief History of Neoliberalism. jncohen 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempting a reconstruction of the page

jncohen: I have begun to add cited material to this page. I have not had the time to augment the history portion, but, if anyone is interested, the section can include topics such as:

Policies

Something should be said about neoliberalism's prioritization of inflation to high employment, in contrast to the Keynesians. Something on the WTO, FTAA, IMF expansion, etc. could be mentioned here

History

• The rise of Monetarism (someone refers to it obliquely, but a better explanation, and linkage to subsequent anti-Keynesian movements and Reaganomics/Thatcherism, would be a big contribution)
• Neoconservatism adopts economic neoliberalism: Pinochet, Thatcher, Regan, Mulroney, "Rogernomics".
• The Brady Plan and Shock Therapy. It should be noted that portraying the diffusion of neoliberal policies to the developing world as something that was a pure imposition of the IMF or US is probably POV -- for example, see a recent Armijo and Faucher article (I don't have the citation handy) about Latin American voters partly supporting neoliberalism in order to contain runaway inflation, which placed great stress on their savings and general economic stability

Other ideas would be appreciated

As regards your third point above, on "Brady Plan and Shock Therapy": This is a matter of accurate phrasing. Remember to avoid overgeneralization. Sometime-voter support is not a reason to censor an informed discussion of the prominent roles of the US, IMF, and World Bank in neoliberal policy diffusion.Blanche Poubelle 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is completely the opposite -- that it would be an overgeneralization to say that neoliberalism was purely an imposition from the US or multilateral agencies. Note that the framing given above, in "Brady Plan", is in fact the one that is not imposing absolutes on the historical account -jncohen 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reclassification of this Page

Are there any views on the disciplinary categorization of this page? I see that it is associated with political liberalism and macroeconomics, but believe that the subject is best classified as political economy. Are there any views on this? jncohen

Sounds good to me. Organ123 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This page should definitely be reclassified as political economy. Otherwise we run into the problem of mainstream economics afficianados trying to reformulate "neoliberalism" as a mainstream economics discipline concept. That's going to be frustrating for everyone involved.Blanche Poubelle 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blanche Poubelle. I have never dealt with the classification and reclassification of pages in this manner. Does anyone know how to do this, or where information on how such a reclassification could be done? -jncohen 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bread Winners????

In this sentence: "Working families have been forced to have more than one bread-winner." the term "bread-winner" strikes me at something carried over from some other language. I'm not a native english speaker myself, but have never found this term before... which I think is enough of an argument to suggest its removal, since it's uncommon to say the least.

In response to your concern, the common colloquial term "breadwinners" has been replaced with "income-earners".Blanche Poubelle 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Class traumatization?

This article mentions middle-class traumatization as if it were fact. I'm not an economist nor a political scientist by trade, but it does seem to suggest class struggle theories that are certainly not universally (or even broadly) agreed upon. There are enough real effects with neoliberal policies such as free trade regulations that can be described in encyclopedic tone that I'm not certain we need to pad this out with something that suggests a nearly Marxist bias. Still, I leave it to someone who knows the topic better to either set me straight or make the appropriate changes. --The Centipede 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Marxism is a bias _per se_ -- provided we are talking about Marx-influenced historical economic analysis and not his more political rhetoric. Middle-class traumatization sounds like editorializing, and I would like to see the concept better specified and justified if it is going to be used. -jncohen 17:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

The Criticisms section doesn't seem to conform to NPOV, especially the parts on the Clinton administration. I understand the criticisms section obviously does not have to have a neutral view, but the section claims things like "Neoliberalism under the U.S. Clinton administration--steered by Ayn Rand devotee Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin-- was the temporary and unstable policy inducement of economic growth....." This statement should be qualified with something like "x claims that neoliberalism under the U.S. Clinton..." or "A common criticism of Neoliberalism is...." so it doesn't sound like that first statement should be accepted as fact. I am adding a NPOV tag, if you find that its not fitting for this article feel free to remove it. Dark567 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not NPOV, but I do not think qualifying the statements as you described will fix the problem. The section was almost entirely written by an anonymous user who is apparently also interested in the Swedish Social Democratic Party and Primitive accumulation of capital (where (s)he also added content in many consecutive steps without a single edit summary; not that this meant anything). To me the section seems inappropiate not only in vocabulary ("working class", "bread winners"), but also in postulating things that seem completely out of context (e.g. "workers in the U.S. have strongly exhibited many symptoms of their decreasing welfare" -- maybe a violation of wp policy "no original research"?). The more I think about it, the less I can see how a fitting criticism section can be made out of it, as it does not even seem to criticise the same "neoliberalism" that is described in the rest of the article. Currently, the section could aptly be titled "Criticism from a socialist point of view of what socialists see as neoliberalism" (I might be exaggerating here, but only slightly). I think the best way to deal with this section is removing it entirely and rewriting it.

The German article has a (large) section on policies the term neoliberalism is applied to (hardly ever by proponents of the respective policies) and criticism of these, which might be a better model. --a.bit 07:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the whole section. I was just trying not to wholly delete someone else's work. (I find your discourse on the criteria for contribution validity interesting: non-anonymity, liberalism, and contributing in a large block instead of piecemeal.)

I agree with the first complainant on this issue above. Some things can simply be amended with a segue that shows whose position the statement is. All of it is cited, and I thought that citation would be sufficient. But it is no problem to take the attribution out of the citation and put it in the sentence. I have now done this.

However, from what I see, the second complainant above especially charges that what I am contributing is not an accurate reflection (eg his POV criticism) of the relevant scholarly and activists communities' discourses on neoliberalism. I'm going to take issue with this and question your understanding of the concept and the communities that use the concept “neoliberal”. It must be emphasizted that it is unsupportable to claim that neoliberalism is NOT a critical idea. The concept "neoliberalism" flat out does not come from a liberal perspective, so it should show a critical formulation, simply to be accurate. Certainly, this wiki entry on neoliberalism remains incomplete; but it is highly questionable (and indicative of "POV" or political bias) to assert that discussing formulations by Harvey, Pollin, etc., on class compromise issues, etc. is not germane to the page on neoliberalism. I have tremendous questions about the validity of constructing a wiki on "neoliberalism" as if it were an idea that came out of and is contained by mainstream Anglo-American or German economics or political science. Monetarism, yes. Liberalism, yes. Neoliberalism, absolutely not. That is just inaccurate and misleading.

I directed the content to show that if you are coming from a non-critical perspective, then you think of these political-economic issues in terms of "liberalism" (as another Talk Page contributor pointed out above) and "monetarism", not "neoliberalism", and I included links for those so inclined to follow, which I believe is reasonable. I agree that the position of the premier writers on neoliberalism should not be included in the "Criticisms" section. Therefore, I removed everything I wrote (or included from others' contributions) that explains the formulation and use of the term "neoliberalism" from the "Criticisms" section, and placed it in the main entry, leaving the "Criticisms" section for contributors to voice their or others’ objections to the critical formulations of the people who use the term "neoliberalism".

I have read the German page on neoliberalism. It's okay. What should be carried over from the German page is the mention of the origins of the term "neoliberal" in Germany; you can do that. The reason why I contributed to this page at all is because my students often use Wikipedia and they need some direction as to the flavor and gist of the discussion on neoliberalism in the English-speaking world. Inasmuch as youall seem to go on and on about how great the German page is, it's been months and months and you never seem to get around to adapting it to this site. That's clearly your project; do it. If you have the timeand inclination to get worked up about the mention of class relations in a wiki on neoliberalism (!), then maybe you have the time and inclination to introduce the sections of the German site that you keep recommending. Blanche Poubelle 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Build It

For you guys who just know in your gut that class analysis is "biased" or "tired": I've created a section for the presentation of the Right-wing liberal (for you: "totally objective 'n' fresh") reinterpretation of neoliberalism, called "The State-centric Approach to Neoliberalism". State-centric sociology and political science work to reformulate the concept of neoliberalism so that it conforms to current orthodox economics. I have even started you off with a recent example from Monica Prasad. Now do your research and start building! Blanche Poubelle 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Overview Clarification Required

I want to see the contributor (or someone) operationalize (clarify) "centralized" and "decentralized", characterizing economic institutions in the Overview section. In what way are "economic institutions" decentralized? Are you using centralized/decentralized as a euphemism for "public" and "private"?--if so, the euphemistic jargon is too unclear. Eg, private institutions can be (and often are) centralized. Clarify it--I suggest by specifying which kinds of economic institutions you are talking about--or it will get clarified.Blanche Poubelle 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Centralized economic institutions refer to economic institutions in which a larger proportion of societal economic decisions -- for example, production and distribution -- are made by a centralized planning agency (insofar as the term is applied to national economies, we are generally talking about governments). The distinguishing characteristic here is that there is a "master planner" of the economy. Decentralized economic institutions are ones in which a lower proportion of national economic decision-making is made by central planners (i.e., governments). These two terms are ideal types. Actual economies can vary from ones that have strong central planning (e.g., Soviet systems) to a generally decentralized system with strong government regulation and oversight (typical of the mid-century capitalist system) to very decentralized systems, in which governments are quite hands-off (like late-19th century systems). In the present context, my own entries (which have thus far avoided the criticism section, but will engage these discussions the future) use the terms "centralized" and "decentralized" to denote a basic change in the capitalist system between the period of (roughly) 1945 to the late-1970s/early-1980s, and from the late-1980s until today. The change is nuanced, and not as simple as polemics from the left or right might suggest. An extended overview and empirical exposition is offered in: Joseph Nathan Cohen and Miguel Centeno (2006) "Neoliberalism and Patterns of Economic Performance: 1980 to 2000" Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science (pardon the self-citation). jncohen 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying to you is that your definition of "centralized" and "decentralized" is particular to (based on assumptions of) your discipline. What I am asking you to do is to clarify that in the text. Not all disciplines recognize "centralized" as pertaining to government-planned economies only. If you don't want to clarify your position, then I will insert the terms "public" and "private". I trust this is agreeable, since this is not an economics textbook.Blanche Poubelle 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a sociologist. Here's the problem with making a sharp distinction between using the terms "public" versus "private": In broader historical terms, postwar economies are all "publicly-controlled" ones. While it's true that there have been some reductions in public sector activity (e.g., reduction of the welfare state, privatization), some areas have actually increased (e.g., social security or health-related payments, or increased reserve banking or relatively constant total expenditures (although the latter may be partly attributable to increased interest payments)). In some respects, what has changed is how governments have interacted with the economy. They are still very large and powerful in the grand scope of things, but their role seems to have changed from one in which governments acted as direct managerial administrators to ones in which they are acting as indirect brokers, but still powerful ones nevertheless.

My preference for the centralized-decentralized dichotomy does not reflect some simplistic fidelity to a discipline. Rather, in my opinion, this dichotomy best reflects what I see to be the empirical record, and this interpretation has passed peer review in a reputable journal. I would like to add the belief that governments are not victims who have been usurped by business -- this is also simplistic, as they have played an active role in shaping what has happened and government agents have been beneficiaries of neoliberalism. I encourage you to consider the evidence given in the article cited above. I do respect any differences in opinion that you might have on this point and would be happy to discuss it, as I believe you are bringing up a very valid issue. I do not maintain that my answers are decisive on this issue, and would like to talk about it. I do think that whatever label is chosen should reflect the empirical record as closely and faithfully as possible. -jncohen 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting perspective. It also illustrates what I had expressed somewhere on this page, which is that "neoliberalism" - as a relatively new economic world-view based on classical economics - itself requires clarification and consensus even in the academic literature on the subject. Political economy and globalization studies are from my perspective critical; but, I think that it would be too great of a challenge to write a Wikipedia article on the subject until economic historians are ready to analyze it (that is, if there are still historians around at the dusk of the current neoliberal economic cycle). --Kenneth M Burke 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this issue is plagued by basic conceptual problems. What is worse is that it is very difficult to get a clear picture of how economic governance has changed since 9/11, the rejection of Doha, etc. The matter is complicated, but BlanchePoubelle is raising an interesting issue with his discussion of how to characterize "neoliberalism" tentatively, while we wait for history to unravel. His/her public-private dichotomy is a valid one, although I prefer my own framing. I would be curious to hear other perspectives on the issue from those who study neoliberalism. -jncohen 16:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an area where users could certainly yield the benefits of Wikipedia. The encyclopedia provides the opportunity for individuals with diverse frames of reference to create articles on topics with multiple perspectives from various areas of study. Notwithstanding the need to refrain from original research, working together to map knowledge in such a way is a challenge when editors can have such widely differentiated backgrounds and points of view. Neoliberalism is evidently a perfect case in point. --Kenneth M Burke 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neoliberalism, neoliberal state and hegemonic cycles

Neoliberalism, in the sense of Hayek and the Mount Pélerin society, is not an innovation. Nor can it be reduced to mere opposition to planned economies. David Harvey, in A brief history of Neoliberalism(Oxford UP, 2005) has shown that the neoliberal state is just as eager to intervene where class power and interests are at stake (Harvey, op. cit. p67). Its rise to a historically unique position and influence, as dominant political economy in global capitalism, is linked to the hyper financialisation of the US economy since the days of Paul Volcker. In this context neoliberalism is best interpreted as the best suited ideology for the system-wide financial expansion stage of a hegemonic cycle described by Giovanni Arrighi and Beverly J. Silver in Chaos and governance in the modern world system.--Henri 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Monetarist vs. Austrian

"Neoliberalism is associated with Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian School of economics, economics departments such as that at the University of Chicago (and such professors as Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger), and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank. None of these parties uses the typically-critical label "neoliberal"; but some have identified with monetarism. Neoliberalism was founded in the movement away from the Keynesian economics that were dominant immediately after World War II in such countries as the U.S. and England, although it has spread to countries without Keynesian policies, as disparate as Sweden, South Africa, Argentina, and Russia. The philosophy promotes a "liberalization" of capital markets (thus called "neoliberal reform")."

-This makes it sound like Friedrich Hayek is a Monetarist but he is of the Austrian School. Jayson Virissimo 08:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes Hayek sound like a Monetarist. In any case, how might this passage be sharpened? In my view, Austrian School, Monetarism, or any other "school of thought" moniker is less material than the sense that there were enduring strands of economic thought that felt markets were best left unfettered jncohen 16:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Whereas the Monetarists generally advocate central banks seeking price stability, the Austrians usually advocate liberated banking in addition to the rest of the economy. Because Austrians usually think of money as another (albeit very important) economic good, neoliberal monetary policy still manipulates the economy. In this way Austrians wonder whether the market is really unfettered under prevailing neoliberal policy. Anonymous 14:00, 26 Aug 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.207.221 (talk)

It is also worth noting that lumping Austrian school economists with the IMF and WB is very misleading as most Austrian school economists would support abolishing both institutions, so how Austrian economics and IMF/WB policies can all be part of "neoliberalism" is mysterious and only adds further evidence that the term "neoliberalism" is itself misleading. Being a creation of those who oppose the policies in question, it becomes a cover-all term that obscures much more than it illuminates. This whole entry suffers from numerous other problems as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghorwitz (talk • contribs) 02:44, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are splitting hairs on this one. Both groups advocate removing monetary policy from the hands of elected politicians that could be swayed by populist impulses. Whereas an Austrian might support removing all government interference with monetary markets, and an IMF/WB position might advocate placing the monetary system in the hands of technocrats, both advocat removing the strong degree of monetary control that was acquired by elected officials/legislators over the postwar era. Struggles over these types of transfers of economic power -- those characteristic of a transfer from a postwar system to whatever followed stagflation lies at the heart of discussions concerning neoliberalism. The points of discord you identify do not denote contrasts between those who advocate strongly Keynesian or interventionist policy from those who wanted (non-economist, non-technocratic) government officials to stop mettling in the economy. They are not concerned with the historical event denoted by this term. -jncohen 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss Deletion of Passage in "Before Neoliberalism" Section

I would like to propose the deletion of the following passage from the "Before Neoliberalism" section: "With few exceptions, the economies of most European countries during Middle Ages were under a considerable degree of state control due to adherence to Mercantilism ideas and the predominance of the Feudalism system. Unsurprisingly, the Middle Ages were characterized by a considerable degree of stagnation."

These are my issues with this passage:

1. Irrelevance. These notes on Mercantilism and Feudalism are pertinent to classical liberalism, but not neoliberalism per se. This is not the place to outline the history of capitalism. Classical liberalism is mentioned because its influence on the rise of neoliberalism was clear and direct. Feudalism, in my view, has little to no merit here. Can Hialeahcuban please explain the pertinence of this entry?
2. Poor Precision and Accuracy Mercantilism is probably better described as a set of policies employed in the early modern world, rather than the Middle Ages.
3. Misleading I take exception to the phrasing that links Mercantilism to economic stagnancy. This gives the false impression that mercantilism itself was a source of economic stagnancy, which, in my view, is a simplistic reading of history. Any serious discussion linking poor prosperity to economic governance in the Middle Ages and Early Modern World would be advised to consider issues like political stability and the absence of war, technology, the rise of industry, changes in domestic political organization, or any number of other factors.

These are my objections to this passage, and the reason I wish to delete it. If the passage is to be left in, can it please be addressed? -jncohen 16:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I thank Jncohen for his concerns. I hope that I can deal with them, and that we can come with a resolution that will improve the overall quality of the article.

Relevance: Given that much of Latin America was founded on feudalistic principles (in the form of the encomienda) and subject to a mercantilist system until well into the eighteenth century (for reference, see the article on mercantilism in Spanish), I believe that it is relevant to provide a historical sketch that mentions these two principles of statecraft. Their importance in shaping the region's values (in particular, the strong preference for statist economic policies) cannot be understated and appears in numerous places in the literature.

Time frame: While some parts of Europe discarded much of the mercantilist system durin their expansionary phase (the Netherlands and England come to mind), Spain did not. Its colonies were subject to mercantilist controls until the late eighteenth century (this was the cause of serious clashes between the Spanish Crown and the Cuban criollos).

Economic Impact of Mercantilism: As was the case with socialism, I believe that mercantilism inherently led to economic stagnation. While the factors that you mentioned played an important rule in fueling economic growth, most of them are tied into kind of economic system that operated in a given country. For instance, where mercantilism prevailed, there were few technological developments of the kind seen in the more capitalistic countries (case in point: Spain following its Golden Age). Nonetheless, even though I believe them to be redundant, I would have no problem with them being added. Likewise, I have no problem with adding political factors, such as the absence of war, that affected economic growth. Hialeahcuban 18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Hialeahcuban:

1. Let's begin with your third point, on the Economic Impact of Mercantilism: It may be your point of view that "mercantilism inherently [leads] to economic stagnation", but this is:

1. Not appropriate for the entry on neoliberalism. I recommend you make this argument in the entry for mercantilism
2. Non-neutral point-of-view. Wikipedia is not a forum for personal points of view. Your suggestions that mercantilism inherently leads to stagnancy is not a consensus view in the history of economics literature. Broad assertions of this nature are, in my own view, a rather simplistic reading of economic history. Furthermore, my reading of the literature is that those who insisted that mercantilism was a sufficient explanation of stagnancy were generally strong supporters of neoliberal policies and their antecedent theories (note the past tense, as the case is hardly made in strong forms in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals). This makes your views on mercantilism a somewhat stealthy insertion of POV. In any case, the entry on neoliberalism is NOT the place for you to advance these views -- they should be advanced in the entry on mercantilism
3. Questionable. Contrary to your belief, I estimate that the VAST majority of economic historians would count technological developments, politics, the abeyance of war and other such factors as both independent of mercantilism's demise and much more likely explanations of prosperity in the nineteenth century. For example, the scientific and industrial revolutions, or the rise of the early modern state and modern paper money predate the fall of mercantilism -- do you really think that the fall of mercantilism is really more important than these developments? In any case, they are certainly not the same developments -- they are clearly different in terms of the time and place that these institutional changes occurred.

Should you feel that Spanish economic history has a special relationship with mercantilism, I recommend you make an entry on Spain and mercantilism. I don't think that the Neoliberalism entry is the place for it to be.

2. Second, let's discuss the pertinence of the Latin American experience. There is little doubt that one can draw parallels between the structures of the Latin American economy and the feudal system of premodern Europe. However, its relevance to the early history of Neoliberalism is questionable in my view. First, the ideology was primarily generated in the rich world, and imposed upon Latin America. Preexisting Latin American economic structures, and the way that they influenced Latin America's experience with neoliberalism, are better suited for special entries on Latin America and Neoliberalism, OR Latin American economic history. In my view, they don't have anything to do with the generation of neoliberalism. Furthermore, your thinking on this topic is not clear to me -- if mercantilism provides a basis for strong state control over the economy in Latin America, how is this pertinent to neoliberalism? Your discussion of statist Latin America seems more suitable to a discussion of Latin American dirigisme. I do not see how it is relevant to this article. This is, of course, assuming that your supposition that Latin America class structures are direct outgrowths of European feudalism, which is somewhat simplistic insofar as I understand the topic. In any case, the neoliberalism entry is not the place to grapple with these questions and issues. I don't believe this entry is relevant here.

3. Finally, let's talk about time-frame. Neoliberalism is a reemergence of classical liberal economic policy principles. As such, classical liberalism is relevant to this article insofar as it has direct and clear linkages to the topic. Keynesianism, Import Substitution and any other policy ideology that neoliberalism replaced is relevant insofar as they were the immediate historical antecedents of neoliberalism. Any other -isms, in my view, makes a mess of this entry. Discussions of neoliberalism always run the danger of blowing up into long discourses about social stratification, the history of capitalism, free markets vs. communism, and a whole slate of other issues. If this entry is to be a good one, it needs to maintain its focus on the specific events, changes and issues that are involved with the late-20th century transitions that the concept denotes. -jncohen 00:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not having responded sooner. Now that I have a chance, I wanted to go ahead and address your concerns.

1. I do understand that my contention that mercantlisim inherently leads to stagnation is not a consensus in the literature; however, who's counting numbers? It is impossible to decouple technological and material "progress" from the predominant economic system during any given time. The means of production are not independent of the will and actions of men.

1 Technological developments do not come about in an environment where an inquisitor can have scholars burned at the stake for heretical teachings or where new discoveries are ignored because they are not useful for the purposes of the state.

2 The nineteenth century was no more peaceful than any of the preceding centuries, as there were numerous continental wars throughout the course of the century.

3 The important difference between the nineteenth century and the preceding centuries was the rise of an international liberal order that allowed the scientific discoveries of the preceding centuries to be put to use in improving the living standards of the people of the world. While I recognize that the Scientific Revolution predates the Industrial Revolution, the scientific discoveries of the preceding centuries would have been all for naught in the absence of an economic order that allowed those discoveries to be put to the service of mankind through the Industrial Revolution.

Having said that, I will concede that my statement regarding the relationship between mercantilism and economic stagnancy is not entirely consistent with the POV guidelines of Wikipedia. Accordingly, I will remove that sentence.

2. Neo-liberalism might have been generated in the "rich world" (whatever that means), however, it was adopted by the leadership of the region on a voluntary basis (either as a means of getting debt relief or from an ideological agreement with the precepts of neo-liberalism). Neo-liberalism arose in opposition to the statist tradition that had predominated in Latin American. Therein is lies the pertinence of a brief discussion of mercantilism.

3. With regard to time-frame. If we are discussing the antecedents of neoliberalism, a short blurb on the antecedents of most statist policies ( Keynesianism, Import Substitution and any other policy ideology that neoliberalism replaced) is relevant because it illustrates the continuing ideological clash between interventionist and non-interventionist approaches. With the rise of neo-populist leaders in Latin America, it does no harm to draw attention to the back and forth between the two approaches.Hialeahcuban 18:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, allow me to clarify the issues that seem to be confusing you:

1. The "rich world" can be understood as being the high-income countries of the West -- roughly similar to the pre-1980 members of the OECD, specifically the US. Should you prefer Cold War terminology, call it the "First World"
2. Whatever your views on the degree to which the tenets of neoliberalism were voluntary, the ideology itself was NOT generated in Latin America. If anything, it was an outgrowth of American and earlier European (and not so much Spanish, as you claim) economics. If I give you Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek as early (pre-1980) American and European ("rich world") architects of neoliberal economics, can you give me the early (pre-1980, or even pre-1990) Latin American architects? Remember: Chileans from the early 1970s were Friedman disciples -- I want to know who you are thinking about when you talk about this Latin American-generated neoliberalism.
3. Your argument with regard to "time-frame" is weak. I give you specific reasons on why Keynesianism, ISI, etc are pertinent, and you tell me, "Why not include mercantilism?" Why not include the economies of Ancient Rome, Greece or Egypt while we're at it? "Why not?" is a lazy reason.
4. Your equation of mercantilism and the Middle Ages is anachronistic. They occurred in two different periods. Mercantilism represents the economic policies of the early modern states. These early modern states, and arguably their city-state predecessors, came during the Renaissance. My principle source is Ferdnand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism. Please cite your source. -jncohen 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me go ahead and take a sec to respond:

1. I never said that Neo-liberalism surfaced as an intellectual movement in Latin America. What I have said is that there was an independent intellectual tradition in the region that allowed for the Chileans and others to embrace it (without the "imposition" that most of the populist countries were subject to). You won't find any neo-liberal intellectuals in the region (I know that), however, you will find people that sympathized with it. What do you suppose brought them to that conclusion, if not acceptance of some of neo-liberalisms basic tenets?
2. My argument for timeframe is simple. Without exception, the countries that have undergone a Neo-liberal period have been the victims of state interventionism from time immemorial. There is nothing inappropriate with pointing this out. Indeed, to understand how Neo-liberalism came about, it is important to understand how it fits into a larger intellectual tradition (which had been marked by a constant clash between interventionist and non-interventionist ideologies). Why not go back to the Ancient Rome, Greece or Egypt? Well, while the intellectual tradition of one of the main regions to undergo a Neo-liberal tradition (Latin America) can be traced that far, its early institutions were an immediate product of Mercantilist and Feudal ideas.
3. I will concede that my equation of mercantilism and the Middle Ages is somewhat anachronistic. There were some proto-mercantilist policies that stem from the Middle Ages, as Adam Smith and other Enlightenment economists point out, however, it might be worthwhile to disentangle the two to avoid confusion. Hialeahcuban 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, my side comments in the debate:

• I think the "Before Neoliberalism" section is a good idea as it can help to define what neoliberalism is by identifying what neoliberalism is not; but, I think it needs to be written better and calls for a more focused theoretical frame of reference. --Kenneth M Burke 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Latin America in fact might be ideal in differentiating political "liberalism" from economic "liberalism," earlier cycles of economic liberalism and "neoliberalism." --Kenneth M Burke 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kenneth Burke and Hialeahcuban that Latin America is an important locus of action in the unfolding of neoliberalism. I also wholesale agree with Hialeahcuban's latest edits. Maybe the Latin American experience deserves its own section within this entry? -jncohen 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would start with working on the before neoliberalism section then maybe think about a careful case study, using literature directly concerned with neoliberalism as to not risk original research. --Kenneth M Burke 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In working toward the before neoliberalism history section, I think the page introduction and overview could be re-written to provide for a better context. Economic policies could include definition of both domestic and international policies as a subsection of the overview. --Kenneth M Burke 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Neoliberalism Still Ongoing? Response to JettaMann's edits

According to JettaMann, stating the possibility that neoliberalism may be an artifact of the 1990s is POV, and proclaiming that it is definitely ongoing is NPOV. I contend that the opposite it true: rejecting the possibility that neoliberalism is in decline is, in fact, the POV position -- one that asserts "neoliberalism will never die", and dismisses those who contend otherwise as "wishful thinkers". Charges of wishful thinking may serve as evidence to listeners of talk radio, but a more informed audience might ask for more than characterizations arguments.

My claim is based on the observations that (from Joseph Cohen and Miguel Centeno (2006) "Neoliberalism and Patterns of Economic Performance" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science):

1. Cutbacks to government expenditures generally bottomed out around 1995
2. The use of import tariffs appeared to be on the rise by the late-1990s
3. Trade growth appeared to stall in the early 2000s
4. FDI started dropping after the turn of the milennium

I could add more to the list, but will reserve it for an paper in progress. I have, however, offered some arguments presented in peer-reviewed journals. I'm going to wait to see if JettaMann is able to support his own position that neoliberalism is still going strong. JettaMann: Do you have anything to back your arguments up (evidence, not pure assertions), or is your charge of "wishful thinking" just a lot of talk?jncohen 13:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not JettaMann, but I think there's a wide number of academic sources who would claim that neoliberalisation is still underway. Much of the disagreement likely lies in the how the term is operationalized. An argument about of the new direction and forms of neoliberalism can be found in J. Peck and A. Tickell (2002) "Neoliberalzing Space." Antipode 34(3): 380-404; S. Radcliffe (2005) "Neoliberalism as we know it, but not in conditions of its own choosing" Environment and Planning A(37):323-329 is a summary of work on neoliberalism in Latin America; and a discussion of neoliberalism's mark on trade agreements and the environment is in E. Hartwick and R. Peet (2003) "Neoliberalism and Nature: The Case of the WTO" Annals of the AAPSS 590: 188-211. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.71.221 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In no way am I claiming that neoliberalism is certainly dead. JettaMann's position is that neoliberalism is certainly ongoing, and (s)he charges that entertaining the possibility that neoliberalism has died off is POV. My position is that neoliberalism's continuity is in question. On the topic of neoliberalism's operationalization -- of course: ultimately, assessing the continuity of any phenomenon depends on how you define that phenomenon. To the extent that neoliberalism can be defined as the sorts of policy changes outlined in the article -- free trade, expenditure cutbacks, free exchange rates, privatization, regulatory cuts, etc. -- my position is that its continuity is a matter of question. (I don't know if it is the best operationalization, but it is concrete, specific and directly tied to the policies explicitly recommended by those who are often cited as key architects of the policy movement) I have not yet read the articles you cite above. Incorporating their views into the article could be very valuable. Cited additions in the front portions of the article are lacking, and the article could be made much richer with the incorporation of other literatures. -jncohen 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Grinning"?

I removed the description of Ronald Reagan "grinning" as he signed legislation, because 1. it's not relevant, and 2. there's nothing in the original material to indicate it's true. On reading the original, I also felt the paraphrase given in the article was inaccurate, so I replaced it with "Joe Conason has argued..." followed by a direct quote. --Dcfleck 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

POV?

The most of the article is criticism written in unapologetic commie style. I think POV tag should be added. Lex aver 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The criticisms of neoliberalism are clearly separated into their own section. Why wouldn't the section on criticisms strike a critical tone? Should you see the need to defend neoliberalism, I recommend that you contribute to a section that outlines reasons for supporting it. The article is still very much incomplete, so your contribution would be valuable. I hope to contribute to such a section, but a new baby daughter has seriously slowed my Wikipedia contributionsjncohen 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Clarification on Ordermaven Edits

Can Ordermaven or someone else clarify Ordermaven's edit that substantial deregulation efforts preceded the Reagan administration? I believe it, but would like specifics. Was Nixon a serious deregulator? I doubt Carter or Ford... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jncohen (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Thank you Sinebot! -jncohen 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

David Harvey writes in A brief history of neoliberalism that "Carter had shifted uneasily towards deregulation (of airlines and trucking) as a partial solution to the crisis of stagflation". --Henri 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I did not consider Carter to be a major deregulator. If there's someone who has expertise in US economic policy during the Carter administration, it would be a great contribution to get more detail on pre-Reagan deregulatory efforts, if they were substantial. -jncohen 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)