Who are the neoliberals?

[Joel]

I keep seeing the term "neoliberalism", apparently referring to some particular intellectual movement, but I never know what or who it's referring to. Who are the self-described advocates of neoliberalism? I tried looking on Amazon for a book, but all I found were books criticizing neoliberalism, none written by advocates of it, making the case for its philosophy. I tried searching for neoliberal websites, and found none.

In contrast, for libertarianism (for example), I can point to many prominent advocates (both academic and activist), organizations, books and websites explaining and arguing for the philosophy, magazines, journals, even a Libertarian Party.

I suspect that "neoliberalism" is a strawman.

[shunyadragon]

I keep seeing the term "neoliberalism", apparently referring to some particular intellectual movement, but I never know what or who it's referring to. Who are the self-described advocates of neoliberalism? I tried looking on Amazon for a book, but all I found were books criticizing neoliberalism, none written by advocates of it, making the case for its philosophy. I tried searching for neoliberal websites, and found none.

In contrast, for libertarianism (for example), I can point to many prominent advocates (both academic and activist), organizations, books and websites explaining and arguing for the philosophy, magazines, journals, even a Libertarian Party.

I suspect that "neoliberalism" is a strawman.

Most likely a strawman created by the right with no substance.

[Starlight]

Well you could have started with wikipedia if you wanted info:

Neoliberalism:

...the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.

The short answer is that nearly all economists over the last 30 years who would call themselves "mainstream" are pretty uniformly neoliberal. They tend to dislike the word neoliberal and prefer to call themselves advocates of the "free market". Sometimes terms like "small government" or "libertarian" are also used. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman are generally viewed as major founders of neoliberalism, and the "Austrian" and "Chicago" schools of economics are pretty much neoliberal by the definition of the word.

[Sparko]

Most likely a strawman created by the right with no substance.

provide sources, please.

[Joel]

Most likely a strawman created by the right with no substance.

The only uses of it I have seen and can find are on the left, criticizing some apparently non-existent boogeyman.

Well you could have started with wikipedia if you wanted info:

Neoliberalism:

...the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.

The short answer is that nearly all economists over the last 30 years who would call themselves "mainstream" are pretty uniformly neoliberal. They tend to dislike the word neoliberal and prefer to call themselves advocates of the "free market". Sometimes terms like "small government" or "libertarian" are also used. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman are generally viewed as major founders of neoliberalism, and the "Austrian" and "Chicago" schools of economics are pretty much neoliberal by the definition of the word.

I did check wikipedia, and found no indication of any self-described neoliberals. I checked facebook, and found no neoliberal group. No neoliberal forums anywhere. Etc. And if you can't find people actually arguing for a thing, you are at best in real danger of fighting against a strawman.

From what you are saying it sounds like you agree that there aren't self-described neoliberals. That "neoliberal" is a term made up by some people to describe certain views they dislike. Why use such a made-up term? Why not use the term(s) that your opponent(s) uses to describe their own philosophy? It raises the question of what other things you might have incorrect about your opponents.

It sounds like you are saying it's just a term that refers to economically libertarianish policies in general, regardless of any philosophy/reasons why someone might recommend them. But then it doesn't actually refer to any particular intellectual movement (or philosophy/ideology), which revolves around the philosophy/reasons. It's not the same kind of thing as libertarianism or neoconservatism or liberalism etc, where it refers to a particular philosophy that is actually argued by people. Thus using a term like "neoliberal" that appears etymologically similar to those other terms seems deceptive at best.

For example, supply-siders the likes of Art Laffer, have the goal of making the government bigger. They just happen to think that in some cases that is best achieved by such policies as reducing tax rates in order to promote economic growth in order to increase tax revenues and grow the government in the long run. They are anti-libertarian and big-government, but would you include them as "neoliberals"?

[Jedidiah]

provide sources, please.

He does have a link to wikipedia.

[Sparko]

He does have a link to wikipedia.

not shunya.

[EvoUK]

I'm more surprised you haven't heard the term. It means what starlight has already posted.

Whether it's a good or a bad thing usually depends on the person using it.

[Starlight]

I did check wikipedia, and found no indication of any self-described neoliberals. I checked facebook, and found no neoliberal group. No neoliberal forums anywhere. Etc. And if you can't find people actually arguing for a thing, you are at best in real danger of fighting against a strawman.

Well lack of people self-describing with a word sometimes means its an insult (eg the N-word for black people, or the S-word for gay people etc), and sometimes means it's a straw man I guess (can't think of examples of that one though), or means you're misapplying a real term to the wrong group (eg the right in the US calling the US left "socialism"). In this case, I don't think those problems apply. Neoliberals not intended as an insult, I doubt any free-market advocates hear it as such (the synonymous phrase my father commonly uses of "free market ideologues" seems much more insulting for example), and it clearly refers to a group of people who definitely do exist. I think the problem is simply that advocates of deregulation, and privatization, haven't by and large come up with any names to describe themselves, and thus have left it to others to come up with a label for them. Insofar as they have come up with a name, they call themselves "free market capitalists" which is not a useful term because the opponents of neoliberalism also tend to support the free market and capitalism, so they have given themselves a name their opponents are unable to use meaning their opponents have to find another name for them.

From what you are saying it sounds like you agree that there aren't self-described neoliberals. That "neoliberal" is a term made up by some people to describe certain views they dislike. Why use such a made-up term? Why not use the term(s) that your opponent(s) uses to describe their own philosophy?

In general that can be a problem. But I don't see any evidence that it's a problem in this instance. The problem, I think, is that the neoliberals have not come up with any good terms to describe their own philosophies. Many of them would use the term "libertarian", but many of them would not regard themselves as libertarian despite generally advocating for the same economic policies as libertarians. An alternative term in common use is "right wing", but that can be a confusing term because it is often used to refer to social conservatism, while if we merely want to refer to those who are economically right wing in policy (ie neoliberal) there is no common term except neoliberal.

It sounds like you are saying it's just a term that refers to economically libertarianish policies in general, regardless of any philosophy/reasons why someone might recommend them.

Yes, exactly. It's a term that refers to particular government policies regarding economics without any claims about the ideology driving such political views. ie it's a term describing behaviors (policies supported) rather than beliefs or motivations. As you mention, there are a few different motivations and economic ideas that can lead to people holding neoliberal policies. This is probably why no one self-describes as a neoliberal, because the term is overly broad compared to how people like to self-describe.

But then it doesn't actually refer to any particular intellectual movement (or philosophy/ideology), which revolves around the philosophy/reasons.

Well it refers to a clump of intellectual movements that advocate the same core government economic policies.

It's not the same kind of thing as libertarianism or neoconservatism or liberalism etc, where it refers to a particular philosophy that is actually argued by people.

Actually, I would have thought neoconservatism is a similar term in the sense of being used mostly by opponents rather than its advocates.

For example, supply-siders the likes of Art Laffer, have the goal of making the government bigger. They just happen to think that in some cases that is best achieved by such policies as reducing tax rates in order to promote economic growth in order to increase tax revenues and grow the government in the long run. They are anti-libertarian and big-government, but would you include them as "neoliberals"?

Yes. Their core government economic policies tend to be the same (cut taxes, deregulate, privatize etc) even if their motivations and goals are different.

[Joel]

Whether it's a good or a bad thing usually depends on the person using it.

Okay. Where are the people praising it or arguing for it? Where are the books like "An Introduction to Neoliberalism", written by neoliberals?

Neoliberals not intended as an insult

Searches on google and for books on Amazon.com suggest otherwise. It seems consistently used only to denounce it.

I think the problem is simply that advocates of deregulation, and privatization, haven't by and large come up with any names to describe themselves, and thus have left it to others to come up with a label for them.

It seems rather that you are grouping together a diverse and sometimes mutually-incompatible set of views/philosophies under one label. They don't identify themselves with each other, so they wouldn't necessarily put themselves under a common label. You seem to be agreeing with this--that if they won't group themselves together, you are going to do it for them.

Insofar as they have come up with a name, they call themselves "free market capitalists" which is not a useful term because the opponents of neoliberalism also tend to support the free market and capitalism, so they have given themselves a name their opponents are unable to use meaning their opponents have to find another name for them.

Interesting problem resulting from differing definitions of terms. (Surely "free market capitalists" view opposing economic policies as being anti-free-market. So different sides must be defining the terms differently?)

Yes, exactly. It's a term that refers to particular government policies regarding economics without any claims about the ideology driving such political views. ie it's a term describing behaviors (policies supported) rather than beliefs or motivations.

But do you understand my complaint that etymologically it seems like the term would be referring to an ideology/philosophy?

Actually, I would have thought neoconservatism is a similar term in the sense of being used mostly by opponents rather than its advocates.

But a quick Amazon.com search finds books by advocates, like
"The Essential Neoconservative Reader"
"NeoConservatism: Why We Need It"
"Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea"
The last of these is written by Irving Kristol who seems to be considered a founder of neoconservatism.

But I brought up neoconservatism for the other point, that it is philosophy/beliefs/motivations. While you admit that neoliberalism is not that.

Yes. Their core government economic policies tend to be the same (cut taxes, deregulate, privatize etc) even if their motivations and goals are different.

I'm not sure how useful of a term that is. For a person such as I described whose goal is to grow the government, they would be equally as willing to increase tax rates when they think we are to the left of the peak of the Laffer curve. They don't advocate cutting taxes. They advocate setting tax rates at the peak of the Laffer curve. And if such a person wants to maximize the state's power of the purse, it's not clear they would be neoliberal in any other way.

In the interest of exploring the definition of the term further, what about those who advocate using the state to benefit big business, say giving them subsidies or impose regulations that favor big business? Is that neoliberal?

[Starlight]

Interesting problem resulting from differing definitions of terms. (Surely "free market capitalists" view opposing economic policies as being anti-free-market. So different sides must be defining the terms differently?)

Well I think one or both sides are operating with very vague definitions of the terms. The term "freedom" is unhelpfully vague.

For a person such as I described whose goal is to grow the government, they would be equally as willing to increase tax rates when they think we are to the left of the peak of the Laffer curve. They don't advocate cutting taxes. They advocate setting tax rates at the peak of the Laffer curve.

Well, it's not clear to me whether the people who talk about the Laffer curve really believe their own propaganda, or whether it's just their way of tricking the gullible into thinking that cutting taxes would make more money for the government. i.e. are they really libertarians trying to fool big-government people into supporting their policies? And from the point of view of the rich and powerful who fund them and appoint them to positions of authority, it doesn't really matter whether such economists believe their own BS or not, either way they serve the purposes of the rich by advocating for deregulation and the lowering of taxes, thus allowing the rich to accrue more wealth for themselves at the expense of others.

And I think you're viewing this very much through your own "big-government vs small-government" lens which seems to be an ideological paradigm you constantly apply, and which I find to be bizarre. A much more traditional way of looking things is the behavioral policies "low taxes vs high taxes" and "regulation vs deregulation" that measure actual policies... rather than seeking to judge underlying motives for purity of libertarian beliefs as you are doing.

In the interest of exploring the definition of the term further, what about those who advocate using the state to benefit big business, say giving them subsidies or impose regulations that favor big business? Is that neoliberal?

Such policies are outside the set of core policies that constitute the definition of neoliberal. I think some neoliberals would be in favor of such policies, and some against. It depends on the extent to which their adoption of neoliberal positions is motivated by an ideological belief in the wonders of "free market capitalism" versus a simple desire to make the rich richer... the two are not mutually exclusive either.

[Joel]

Do you have a word for the opposite of neoliberal?
Why "neoliberal"? Is it a reference to classical liberalism?

Also is neoliberal defined as relative to the status quo? Suppose someone thinks that a particular tax should be 5% and they hold that view consistently their entire life. If over time the actual rate is sometimes higher, sometimes lower, than 5%, then the person's policy position is sometimes neoliberal and sometimes the opposite (and perhaps sometimes neutral? Is there a term for that too?) even though the person's position never changed?

[Starlight]

Do you have a word for the opposite of neoliberal?

The historical opposite was Keynesianism. The neoliberals in the 1980s pretty consciously saw themselves as replacing Keynesian economics, which they viewed as having failed, with their own new emerging brand of deregulation and government non-intervention.

Today, of course, there are very few people who would call themselves Keynesians (although there's a few post-Keynesians around). The major opponents of neoliberalism would call themselves things like: Progressive, green, left-wing, social democrat, democratic socialist etc.

Why "neoliberal"? Is it a reference to classical liberalism?

Wiki says that when the term was first coined in the 1930s it was used to refer to people we would now call left-wing/progressives who rejected both classical liberalism and full state-control of the economy and advocated a middle path of a free-but-regulated market. When the term reappeared in the 1980s it was used to refer to those who were basically classical liberals and who rejected Keynesianism / the regulated market approach that had been called "neoliberalism" in the 1930s.

Also is neoliberal defined as relative to the status quo?

No, I don't think so. It's a set of absolute policy positions, not relative ones.

[Joel]

The historical opposite was Keynesianism.

That wouldn't really be the opposite. I think you mean it was the dominant alternative in the 20th century. Socialism would be even more non-neoliberal than Keynesianism. If low-tax, low-regulation, low-spending, etc. in general are neoliberal, then its opposite would be policies of high tax, high state control of the economy, high spending, etc in general, regardless of the reasons and may include Kenyensianism, socialism, syndicalism, etc.

Would the word for non-neoliberal be "statism", "etatism" or the like?

Today, of course, there are very few people who would call themselves Keynesians (although there's a few post-Keynesians around). The major opponents of neoliberalism would call themselves things like: Progressive, green, left-wing, social democrat, democratic socialist etc.

If we are grouping all the advocates of neoliberal policy under one term, why wouldn't we also group all those anti-neoliberals under one term?

Unfortunately neoconservative is already taken.

Also is neoliberal defined as relative to the status quo? Suppose someone thinks that a particular tax should be 5% and they hold that view consistently their entire life. If over time the actual rate is sometimes higher, sometimes lower, than 5%, then the person's policy position is sometimes neoliberal and sometimes the opposite (and perhaps sometimes neutral? Is there a term for that too?) even though the person's position never changed?

No, I don't think so. It's a set of absolute policy positions, not relative ones.

Interesting. So how do you tell? Like with the person who says sales tax should be set at 5%. Is that a neoliberal position? or anti-neoliberal/statist?

[Starlight]

That wouldn't really be the opposite. I think you mean it was the dominant alternative in the 20th century.

Well I think you're pointlessly seeking an absolute opposite rather than a relative one. It's like asking, "what's the opposite of Republican?", and objecting when someone says "Democrat" on the grounds that the republicans and democrats have some areas of agreement and aren't opposite on everything.

The neo-liberals initially presented themselves as an alternative to the Keynesians. Now, if you want a single term to group all modern opponents of neoliberalism under, I think "social democrats" would serve.

But I think you're being pointlessly absolutist, and trying to view everything through your absurd libertarian lens of no-government vs government. Neoliberals by and large aren't in favor of no government, just very small government.

Would the word for non-neoliberal be "statism", "etatism" or the like?

I think if you used those words nobody would understand what you are talking about. And I think a word like statism is incorrect because it implies neoliberals are all anti-state.

If we are grouping all the advocates of neoliberal policy under one term, why wouldn't we also group all those anti-neoliberals under one term?

You really have a hang up about the term neoliberal, don't you?

Like with the person who says sales tax should be set at 5%. Is that a neoliberal position? or anti-neoliberal/statist?

Neither.