Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 3

Tidied Opposition
I changed two things in the bullet list. One change was the second bullet point from the top. It said, "critics consider capitalist economics to be exploitative." Surely this section is about opposition to neo-liberalism not capitalism which are not exchangeable terms. I changed it to: "critics consider neo-liberal economics to promote exploitation." The second change was the second bullet from the bottom which read: "Trade-led, unregulated economic growth and state regulation of pollution and other environmental impacts economic growth." I found this sentence hard to understand and lacking in verbs. I suspect it was a cut-pasted sentence fragment from it's referred article. Although I hadn't read the entire article, I did catch a summary and changed it to a more understandable sentence. That's it, many thanks. 184.1.3.105 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
This called neo-liberalism a left-of-center ideology. I have changed this to right-of-center. What else is neo-liberalism?JohnG62 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The bit borrowed from Ong should mention Foucault's governmentality since it is the framework she uses and has been similarly employed by others to describe the process of neoliberalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.156.45 (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Content Forking
the article is gaining length, in order to give more indepth treatment of sides forking of the article may be a good idea.

For the individual countries if there is enough neoliberal reform or wat not then maybe those ones should have their own articles.

thoughts

Digmores (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Australia section
However, much of this reform policy had been developed earlier by the Liberal Party administration of prime minister Malcolm Fraser in which John Howard had served as treasurer.[citation needed] You won't find a citation for this as it is wrong. The Campbell Committee made basically all of the recommendations and this was during this period. But in their infinite wisdom, Fraser and Howard didn't implement any of them. Only 20 years later after someone else had taken the blow torch for the a VAT and most of the other critically important changes to stability had been made by Hawke and Keating did Howard and Costello finally implement that. Credit where credit is due I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odddmonster (talk • contribs) 23:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Labor government of Kevin Rudd which succeeded in 2007 has purported to roll back some of Howard's labour-market reforms but is generally continuing on a neoliberal course, including the provision of public funds to guarantee corporate finances, eg, for the private banks[54] and motor retailing corporations[55] dependent on foreign loans which were withdrawn during the financial crash of 2008." How on earth could the Rudd Government's actions be termed "continuing on a neo-liberal course" - they are clearly NOT neoliberal. Rudd himself wrote a 7,000 word treatise in The Monthly on the evils of neoliberalism, and has gone on record attacking neoliberals such as Frederick von Hayek. This entire sentence should be removed. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Conno (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Labour market reform by both parties needs to be addressed as well including that was undertaken under Hawke, Keating and Howard. The section with kevin rudd in it dosen't make sense as he is not a neo-liberal neither does he promote neo-liberal policies so it should be removed except for the sections or points refering where he has done specific neo-liberal policies (its a null point as he hasen't done any)

Another thing should it be commented on where and when certain neo-liberal policies have been rolled back or changed so that they are no longer neo-liberal policies or is this not in the scope of the article/section?? thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Digmores (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section about Kevin Rudd as it was unsourced POV, also Rudd has said many times that he is a SOCIAL DEMOCRAT not a neoliberal

Digmores (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Organize Discussion Page
Please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.21.167 (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way to do that is to archive the discussion. All discussion threads appear to be over and I will archive them if there is no objection.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have now archived. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberalism in the UK Labour Party
Editors contributing to this page may be interested in improving this article by utilising the large number of sources that have been uncovered demonstrating the ascendancy of the neo-liberal ideology in the UK Labour Party. These are listed in large numbers on the talk page of that article. River sider ( talk ) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Neo-liberalism is used positively, not just as a perjorative
The article currently states that the term 'neo-liberalism' is never used, except in a perjorative way by leftist opponents of neoliberal policies.

This is a 'black swan' argument, in that only one example of the use of the term in a positive way is neccessary to disprove it.

It therefore puzzles me why the reference to a positive use of the term by Tim Worstall on the Adam Smith Institute blog, and also rehashed here was removed, and the text changed in defiance of this piece of published evidence.

Can we change it back please, as other examples of positive use of the term by supporters of neoliberalism will quickly surface, and make the article seem daft. River sider ( talk ) 12:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, there are examples of 'neoliberalism' being used by 'neutrals' who stand outside the divide between pro and anti-neoliberal policies. For example the World Health Organisation gives us this: Economic globalization is generally associated with neo-liberal policies. Such policies include reductions in tariffs, the reduction or elimination of restrictions on foreign investment, and the inclusion of services such as banking and insurance in trade regimes.....The increases in economic cross-border flows that have resulted in more “open” economies are a result, in part, of World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies. All this change is supported by a new international architecture - from the United Nations and international organizations, such as WHO, to economic blocs such as the European Union, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the North American Free Trade Agreement. For some critics, this architecture supports and facilitates the benefits of globalization, but fails to limit its worst excesses as it drives forward a neo-liberal agenda that works to benefit the richer, more powerful nations. A more positive view of globalization is that it has the potential to boost productivity and living standards everywhere because a globally integrated economy can lead to a better division of labour and the right conditions for companies to exploit greater economies of scale. It is also claimed that, with globalization, capital can be shifted to whatever country offers the most productive investment opportunities, creating economic growth

. River sider ( talk ) 14:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another highly positive use of the term, with no hint of irony; Dr Alex Nicholls explaining why he believes 'Fairtrade' works well as a free-market method of supporting third world farmers:

Fairtrade is a unique solution to market failures in the global trading system. Firstly, as a consumer choice movement, it is outside the scope of government regulation and thus cannot be criticized as an interventionist trade policy. Secondly, by correcting market failures to make the trading system work for everyone, Fairtrade is, in fact, a neo-liberal solution to problems with trade. Fairtrade works within an efficient capitalist system, rather than abandoning the liberal trade model entirely. Alex Nicholls is an MBA, and a lecturer in 'Social Entrepreneurship' (a concept that has 'third way' written all over it). I think we have gathered enough evidence here to conclusively disprove any assertion that the term is ONLY used by leftist critics of neoliberalism, but is indeed sometimes used by the neoliberals themselves. River sider ( talk ) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Riversider: Fair Trade might be considered a 'market solution' (and thus, a concession to some), but Nicholls here is ignoring that it's also a form of worker organization, which is antithetical to neoliberalism. Your point is clear though, it's not always used as a pejorative term. EvolutionRevolution (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the article currently says that it is only "very occasionally" used in a positive context. I think this language is weasel-word-y, and kind of POV as well (what qualifies it? any cite-able article that states there is no "neoliberal" ideology with supporters who call it that? from the above discussion, it looks like there are at least a few examples of supporters who do call it that). The wording should be changed from "very occasionally" to "sometimes" (which still stands in contrast to the earlier text that accounts for pejorative use).

Also, I think some of the wording of that sentence is a little confusing.

"By leftists the term 'neoliberalism' is used as a pejorative"

It would be fine and fair to say that most people who use the term pejoratively are leftists. But the sentence implies something different: that "Leftists," across the board, use the term pejoratively. This becomes confusing if we follow the logic of people's general associations of "Leftists" with "Liberalism" and, tranisitively, "Liberalism" with "Neoliberalism." While the sentence says that "Leftists" use the term pejoratively, I would assume that "Leftism" equates (even if somewhat roughly) with "Liberalism." And as far as I can see, "Neoliberalism" is still considered, if you will, a subset of "Liberalism." I think many readers will approach this sentence with these same associations in mind, and from this perspective, the sentence is confusing. If all "Neoliberals" are "Liberals" and some "Liberals" are "Leftists," might some supporters of "Neoliberalism" be "Leftists"? We can't really make an assumption that "Leftists" are more to the "Left" than where most "Liberals" are. A "Leftist" is usually seen as a "Liberal" while a "Right-winger" or "Person of the Right" etc is considered a "Conservative." Maybe we can clear this up a bit? I'd like to do it in a way that still avoids characterizing critics as being of the "Far Left" or "Radical Left" or anything like that. Sure, we can say that the vast majority of critics and people using the term pejoratively are Leftists -- but the article seems to imply the converse, that the vast majority of Leftists are critics (which is confusing for the reasons I just outlined). 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 173 Neo-liberalism applies to a form of economic liberalism, rather than to social liberalism - 'leftists' (I agree a problematic formulation) tend to be 'social liberals' but critics of economic liberalism. Applying the term 'liberals' to the left is therefore confusing as it does not differentiate between economic and social liberalism, though I think some of the confusion of categories you explore above has enabled the the way former left parties have been taken over by leaderships with openly neo-liberal ideologies.


 * 'Sometimes' is stronger than 'very occassionally' - I've only found a small number of citations to show the non-perjorative use of the term and I'm not sure there are yet enough to upgrade from 'very occassionally' to 'sometimes'. The use of the citation means that it is not 'weasel wording' as it answers the question 'who is saying this'. River sider ( talk ) 10:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the libertarians and conservatives do not use the term to describe their programs; it is very heavily used in the Marxist and leftist literature to denounce the policies involved. Google and Questia searches turn up thousands of hostile uses but not a single favorable cite in recent years. Likewise all the reference is NY Times in recent years are hostile.  see NYTimes search That's what a pejorative term looks like. Rjensen (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you couldn't find any positive or non-perjorative uses of the term, I list 3 just above. I agree that probably 95% of the time it is used by opponents of neoliberal policies - but proponents of these ideas clearly do (very occasionally) use the term. It's not unusual however for political and economic trends to be identified and named first by their opponents and critics, and then for that name to 'stick' and come into more common usage - for example the word 'Tory' (the now non-perjorative nickname commonly used for the UK conservative party) originally meant 'outlaw' or 'robber'. I'd suggest a rather similar process is happening with neoliberalism. It would be totally wrong to state that the term is NEVER used positively or ALWAYS as a perjorative, as this is like saying 'there is no such thing as a black swan', as soon as one black swan turns up, the sentence becomes ridiculous. We have identified at least 3 black swans here and there are probably several more. River sider ( talk ) 08:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another citation on the positive impact of neoliberalism

Brazil’s adoption of neo-liberal practices which led to economic development benefitted the country because greater emphasis was placed on exports together with a more efficient use of imports produced larger trade surpluses, labor market deregulation kept wages and unemployment relatively low and higher rates of growth and productivity and a relatively stable macroeconomic environment reduced poverty and inequality.[6] Another major benefit that Brazil gained from the neoliberal practices were the controls on bank lending reduced the inflationary practice of state banks lending to the federal government. Baer stated that price stability and currency appreciation led to increased foreign imports and investment. Foreign direct investment in Brazil increased from less than US $1 billion in 1991 (net inflows) to a high of US $30 billion in 1999.
 * I'd also like to refer you to this thesis written by a strong advocate of 'neoliberal reform' and opponent of 'left/labor power',

. These black swans are beginning to gather...River sider ( talk ) 09:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * is that about it--an unsigned Wiki on Brazil and a 2006 unpublished MA thesis? We have about 99.9 % negative and 00.1% positive references. Rjensen (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 0.01% is enough to rule out the use of the words 'always' and 'never' and to justify the use of the words 'very occasionally', which is all I am arguing. I agree that the WHO, Alex Nicholls and the ASI are stronger sources. This book by Peter R.Kingstone is another pretty good example of the term being used in a neutral non-perjorative way.River sider ( talk ) 10:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution to meet Riversider2008's criteria is something like this: "Neoliberalism" is primarily a pejoritive term used by opponents of the policies; supporters rarely use the term and prefer terms like "free market" or "libertarian."[refs: Ronald Hamowy, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (2008) p. 208 Manfred B. Steger, and Ravi K. Roy. Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction (2010) page x Rjensen (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a citable quote, but the problem is that there are several obvious examples of neutral uses of the term by academics like Kingstone and organisations like the WHO, the existence of which contradicts what the quote says, as well as a much smaller number of examples of the term being used in a positive way by people like Alex Nicholls and Tim Worstall. Is it really that crucial that there is a sentence on who uses the term in the opening paragraph? <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 11:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I also point you to Monica Prasad (already cited in the main body of the article), from that cradle of liberal economics, the Chicago School, who has no fear of using the term 'Neoliberalism' in a non-perjorative way. Interestingly, Steger and Roy (2010), in the very book Rjensen quotes from have given us a useful example of the term being used in it's neutral sense as a name for a collection of ideas, and are attempting to describe briefly all the aspects of the development and history of neoliberal ideology, both negative and positive. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 13:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC) <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 11:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This comment is for Riversider2008. I think we are dealing with a global view of the meaning of "Neoliberalism" versus the use of the word by some American Progressives. It's extremely common these days in the US for Progressives to attack others on the ideological left who they view as "not left enough" by calling them "Neoliberals" hence the meaningless perjorative suggestion. You can see this by going onto OpEdNews.com and doing a search on the word. Additionally, George Lakoff, a fairly important author and linguist in the US who writes on American politics frequently uses the word the same way in his books. Perhaps a compromise in the wiki would be to add a small section that acknowledges that in the US the word is being used this way. Sleser001 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) sleser001 aka Steve Leser
 * Thanks Sleser, there are definite problems here as in the US, the word 'liberal' and the word 'left' are often seen as interchangeable, whereas in Europe 'Liberal' has a quite different meaning. There are plenty of terms with precisely defined meanings, that can be taken by those who do not fully understand these meanings and misapplied, often perjoratively: 'schizophrenic' is a prime example, a WP article on schizophrenia should reflect the scientific understanding of the term, rather than the mythology of popular culture, and this should apply to the term 'neoliberalism' too. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 11:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is muddled
It mentions that Alexander Rüstow coined the term, and that he was "one of the fathers of social market economy", without mentioning that neoliberalism as understood today (as opposed, apparently, to how Rüstow himself understood the term) is directly opposed to the social market economy. To quote Rüstow (translating) from the German Wikipedia page on neoliberalism:


 * The new liberalism, in any case, which one can support today, and which I, together with my friends, support, requires a strong state, a state above the economy, above self-interested parties [i.e., economic agents], there, where it [the state] belongs.

Thus, Rüstow would be a fierce critic of neoliberalism as it is understood today, since according to neoliberalism, markets take care of themselves, and the state just gets in the way. The first paragraph, if it continues to mention where the term "neoliberalism" comes from, should make that clear.

Hyperion (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then find a source and rewrite it. The term is not used only as a pejorative and there is no need to mention the origins of the term.  It should be mentioned in the article that Ruestow's theories were called neoliberalism and there is a connection between the earlier and modern meanings, since Ruestow was a colleague of Hayek and both wanted to develop post-war Germany along liberal lines, although they disagreed about how thaty should be done.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will remove the reference to Rustow. He was writing in German about "Neoliberalismus" and that is not the same as the English term that is the topic of this article. Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Provenance of the term
I removed the following sentence from the lead: "The term "Neoliberalism" came into wide use after the 1960s by Marxists". It has now been reinserted with a reference to Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction, p. X. But that page does not support that position either.  Not only does it not mention Marxists but it does not say anything about the 1960s. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberalism Vs. Libertarianism
Are they essentially the same? Or are there fundamental differences between them. 204.184.80.26 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well for the most part Libertarians criticise the Neoliberals (as normally and currently understood) as being a different kind of dirigists, socialists and such in an apparently anti-government way. Just see how Murray Rothbards criticised Reagan as a "reverse Keynesian" or "upside down Keynesianism". They also consider that neoliberalism privatises but also turns the government an "associate" and "protector" of privates (see corporate welfare) and as such they don't really fight governmental waist. 193.136.21.65 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See also governmentality (Foucault, Rose, Lemke, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.156.45 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well yes, many U.S.-style libertarians do like to split hairs when it comes to political analysis; to the purists, even Reagan, Thatcher, the Bushes, Cheney, Palin, et. al. are unacceptable (as I'm sure they would be with even "their own" Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or anyone else; the harshest critic of a libertarian is always another libertarian; "I'm the real libertarian"; "No I am!"; "You're a socialist-statist"; "No YOU ARE!", etc.). But in general, yes, neoliberalism and libertarianism both go in the same direction: towards the free market (more private ownership) and less taxation, government regulation, government power, less government period.  The main differences are that libertarians are ultra-principled purists (or "idealists") and neoliberals are pretty much "ultra" pragmatic ("anything goes, so long as it wins the next election").  This results in neoliberals taking some positions that are both more "left" than libertarians (such as using government to farm out social services to private enterprises) and some that are more populist/"right" (shying away from issues like gay marriage, sexual freedom, drug legalization, etc.).  An analogy: neoliberals are to libertarians what Confederate-flag waving rednecks are to Nazis; both neoliberals AND rednecks are a heck of alot more common and pervasive in society; libertarians and Nazis, being the purist fundamentalists they are, are not (though libertarians seem to be making dramatic gains in recent years). Shanoman (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Something is wrong here.
This article contains the word "Harvey" 16 times and "Friedman" 14 times. The names "Coase" and "Lucas" do not even appear at all. Harvey may deserve a place as one of the principal critics of neoliberal theory, but when his name appears more often than the founders of the movement itself, I think the neutrality of this article is seriously sacrificed. A more thorough and less ideological summary of the history of the neoliberal movement is badly needed here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Af1176 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 April 2010‎ (UTC)

POV dispute and semi-protection request
Okay so it seems clear to me that this page is currently heavily biased, suggesting that Neoliberalism is purely a pejorative term and the cause is obvious. Despite the above discussion on the subject and having been reverted previously, user 92.118.215.215 is persistently editing the article to their point of view. I suggest that the article be semi-protected to put an end to it ans so we can restore neutrality to this page. Gul e (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-protection is to prevent edit-warring and vandalism by floating IPs, but 92.118.215.215 appears to be a stable IP address. The IP seems to confuse libertarianism with neoliberalism.  Since the IP originates from Greece he has a front row seat to neoliberalism.  TFD (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do find a need to request page protection, the place to go is WP:RFPP. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There could be a strong case for reporting said user for edit warring, deleting a well-referenced point from a valid authoritative secondary source, repeatedly, is not good WP behaviour. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 23:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not POV that all the sources of this so called "ideology" point as it's founders, architects, intellectuals etc to economists like Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, F.A Hayek. It's not point of view that these people have never written anything about "Neoliberalism". It's not point of view that all of them identified themselves as Liberals. It's not POV that this label comes from the leftists and neutrals have them as sources and not people that identify themselves as neoliberals and write about neoliberalism. Finally it's not POV that none of you is neoliberal so until you find one that complains that we deny his/her existence the article should make clear all this facts and that there has never been a neoliberal ideology. Truth 12:3510 May 2010 (CET)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.215.215 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And one last thing it's not POV that democrat Bill Clinton ex prime minister of USA, socialdemocrat Tony Blair, socialdemocrat Gerhard Schröder ex prime minister of Germany, conservative G.W.Bush ex prime minister of USA are called neoliberals by the leftists. In Greece the conservative party leader called the socialdemocrat prime minister neoliberal, the socialdemocrats many times in the past called the consercatives neoiberals and the leftist parties call everybody neoliberal. So until you find a party that says we are neoliberal and we are proud of our neoliberal policies you are talking about a ghost. A fantasy...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.215.215 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest a better term for them? TFD (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * IP - If you were to read the talk page, you'd find that I've identified just such examples above. Not many, but more than the zero you assert. There are plenty of political trends and ideologies that are first recognised and named by their opponents: 'Trotskyism' was a term coined by Trotskys enemies and popularised by the Stalinists, the term 'Tory' originally meant 'robber', but was eventually adopted by those labelled with it. The fact that those labelled with this title do not usually apply it to themselves does not invalidate it: it exists and is in common usage, including among respected academic sources, so is a proper subject for an encyclopedia. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean Adam Smith Institute it's a silly example, if I write a blog post explaining what is that thing which they call me it does't mean I adopt that label. Apparently you are not a liberal and you know nothing about the liberal scene. All over the world all the liberals perceive it as a pejorative label because it is a label that use our political opponents. Tories call themselves Tories but no one calls himself neoliberal, so until 2010 it is a label for economic liberalism, not an ideology. Do you think that a fact like that should not be included in an encyclopedia? Secondly I did my research and there is already an ideology called neoliberalism and it is center left but somebody deleted this fact from the wikipedia. Truth 12:28 12 May 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.215.215 (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do neoliberals call themselves? TFD (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blair, the consummate neoliberal, gave himself the pretty meaningless label 'progressive' while carrying out his programme of privatisations, liberalisation of banking regulations and economically motivated warfare. Neoliberalism is a highly pragmatic set of ideas - its practitioners give themselves a pretty diverse set of names depending on their history and what is politically expedient, but can by identified because of a common set of economic and political objectives and tactics. The argument that 'neoliberals don't call themselves neoliberals therefore neoliberalism doesn't exist' does not hold water - terrorists don't call themselves terrorists, they give themselves a diverse range of other labels, yet exist and 'terrorism' is a proper topic for an encyclopedia, despite the absence of self-published sources where terrorists identify themselves as such. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 08:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrorism has a pretty well defined universal definition (not who is a terrorist but what is a terrorist). Neoliberalist on the other hand is just a label in the way you use it (everyone that does not deny the Market) and it does not have a universal definition. As an ideology it comes from the left, in fact both neoconservatism and neoliberalism come from the left. Neoliberalists are liberals in the american sense that accept more market and neocons are conservatives that accept more government (because they come from the left) but in the end they meet in the same point almost (from left to left center and from right to right center).

"If neoconservatism are liberals (in the american sense) who took a critical look at liberalism and decided to become conservatives, we are liberals (with the american sense) who took the same look and decided to retain our goals but to abandon some of our prejudices (about the market, war etc)" - The Neoliberal Manifesto (Charles Peters - the guy that coined the term neoliberalism for this ideology)

"Neoconservatives are not libertarian in any sense. A conservative welfare state is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective." - Irvin Kristol (the founder of the neoconservative movement)

"Neo-cons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural indeed inevitable" - Irving Kristol

Pro market policies are not neoliberal nor neoconcevative. You cannot say that establishment politicians are neoliberals or neocons just because they practice some pro market policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.215.215 (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What does any of this have to do with the article or more importantly improving it? TFD (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro-market, pro-finance capital politics/ideology has been the ideology of the economic and political establishment, whether they ostensibly come from left or right (from the late 70's at least up until the credit crunch). Neoliberalism is the name given to this ideology. Large numbers of academic papers use the term and explore the implications of this set of policies and ideas. Charles Peters manifesto is a (rare) example of a neoliberal calling themselves a neoliberal, the rest don't really need to. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 08:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The left is in confusion. They don't know the difference between neoconservatism, neoliberalism, liberalism and libertarianism. Neoliberalism is not whatever policy is a bit pro-market. The left that practices some pro-market policies has moved a bit to the center thus it is center left (neoliberal Clinton), the right that enlarges the Government (neocon Bush) while still practices some pro-market policies has moved a bit to the center thus it is center right. The confusion is very funny because the left call everybody neoliberal even though they are not. For example Milton Friedman is called neoliberal so is IMF even though Friedman and other liberals like Rothbard advocated for its abolishment. IMF is called neoliberal even though supports for example high taxation (in Greece they asked us to raise the VAT). Bush is called neoliberal even though he was one of the biggest spenders in the history of the USA. Wikipedia should shed some light of what neoliberalism is and it is a center-left ideology, that is left-liberalism (liberalism as defined in the USA) with some pro market policies. Four Deuces all these show that it is left center ideology. Truth 13:31, 20 May 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.215.215 (talk)


 * this article should not refer to the topic in a political sense as it is an economic argument for exmaple in my country australia neoliberal policies have been implmented by both the Labor and Liberal (conservative) parties though they have condridictory views on other social policies such as healthcare, immigration, transfer payments etc.

secondly the term neoliberal is used by many people and politicians to further a specific agenda without regard to whether or not they are actually neoliberal, try to focus on sources written by central banks, or papers that an economist would read rather than the popular press. thirdly a little think on ur above comment IP, increasing taxation in order to reduce deficit is within the bounds of neoliberal theory especially within the context of the current crisis which is a liquidity crisis where increased expansionary fiscal policy could do more harm than good. finally a person should not be used as an example of any ideolgy evan if they say that they represent that idology if they conflict with basic tenants of that ideology i.e. George Bush dubious neoliberal me thinks.

oh a passing point on greece, the reason why greece is going through such a harsh crisis with austerity measures being put in place is due to economic policies that provide large transfer payments, a infective tax system, corruption, greed by the man in the street, and dodgy accounting methods that didnt show the real amount of government debt. Therefore in my view greece situation is due to the absence of neoliberal/neoclassical policies and the use of government orientated economy compounded by the points outlined above.

if you have any questions,critiscisms or troll like comments please do not feel shy post on my talk page.

Digmores (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

one more thing many ppl dont see milton Friedman as a neoliberal

Digmores (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

in reference to my very first point that this article should be treated more as one on economics and one less on politics, there is another article called the third way which discuss the idea of left wing parties taking free market economic policies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29

Digmores (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From the 1970s governments retreated from the welfare state and protectionism, which they saw as unsustainable and a hindrance to growth and adopted free market policies while reducing the welfare state, concentrating on fighting inflation and deficits rather than unemployment. Do you doubt that that happened?  Your only dispute is what it should be called.  The term neoliberalism is generally accepted, but if you have a better term then please provide one.  Incidentally neoliberalism refers to the policies presented and does not mean that the Communists, socialists, liberals and conservatives who carried out these policies in China, NZ, US and UK are all neoliberals, just that they implimented neoliberal policies.  TFD (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved from earlier discussion, since it relates to POV dispute: Adding up the Black Swans is rather missing the point. It is a term mainly, but not solely, used by opponents of the ideas it expresses. The term is explicitly rejected by some supporters. However, that does not make it merely a pejorative term. Writers such as David Harvey (A Brief History of Neoliberalism) take some time to specify the ideas and policies that they mean. Even the fiercer critics, Such as Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine) reach for harsher terms, such as Disaster Capitalism, to be pejorative: she implies that others use Neoliberalism to mean something similar.

Milton Friedman tried to reclaim the term Liberalism for his political ideas (Capitalism and Freedom), but its use to describe completely different, left-leaning, ideas was too well embedded in America. Other supporters used the terms Economic Liberal or Libertarian, but Neoliberalism truly does describe a specific development of these concepts. So no term is widely accepted by its supporters, but it does describe something specific. I like the highlighted description above, without the word 'pejorative', or even better "... Neo-liberalism is probably unique in in being rejected as a label by almost all those described as being Neo-liberals", from Dictionary of Liberal Thought (edited Duncan Brack & Ed Randall), which then quotes Mario Vargas Llosa in support.

Note that these were Milton Friedman's political ideas, not his economics. The term describes the political policies developed from these, even though many are predicated on certain economic theories. BritishLib (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

toward whom is ur point directed in context of this discussionDigmores (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am generally arguing against using 'pejorative'. I assume this is supposed to be simply a debate on that, not a discussion group. Please ignore the reference to black swans (from the other topic above), but the main argument still seems to be that the word must be pejorative if it is not used by its supporters. My argument is that it is used by critics (not necessarily of the left), but not just as an insult. It is not used by supporters, because they want to claim a particular ancestry for their ideas. The last paragraph was a particular answer to the suggestions that only economic arguments should be used. BritishLib (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been reading the Wikipedia Content Criteria (via link Interaction: About Wikipedia). The problem with this statement is not that it is POV, but that it is 'original research'. The editor's own analysis should not be included, however well founded. Only analysis already formally published should be used. I intend to replace the statement with one I can properly source: it also reads as a more judicious statement, but that is less important. BritishLib (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

earlier systems (history section)
is this section really necessary if so a breif descripition of the system and a redirect to its respective page should be enough there is no need to outline economic history all the way up to the formulation of neoliberalism as an economic idea Digmores (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, the following section describes the "embedded liberalism" to which neoliberalism was a reaction. TFD (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

'Left of Centre' Vs Establishment
There's been some debate on here about whether neoliberalism should be described as a 'left of centre', 'right of centre' or 'establishment' ideology. The position WP finally takes in this debate should be determined by WHAT THE PUBLISHED SOURCES say, not by individual editors opinions.

In the 1970's neoliberalism was put into practice by Pinochet and Thatcher. In the 1990s by Blair and Clinton. I'd suggest that this shows that politicians from various party backgrounds adopted neoliberal policies and ideology (though in the latter cases without openly identifying themselves as neoliberal), so describing it as a 'right' or a 'left' ideology is pretty meaningless in the modern context (the old left/right 'spectrum' method of identifying political orientation is now outdated anyway, as traditional 'left' parties have moved rightwards internationally).

I'd suggest that we stick with what the majority of published authoritative sources say - that neoliberalism is the ideology held by the political and economic establishment between the 1970s up till the credit crunch. (Whether the credit crunch has resulted in the establishment rejecting neoliberalism, or holding tighter to it is still debateable, and we probably don't have enough published sources yet to avoid recentism in describing post-credit crunch economic thinking). <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 08:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * i agree and disagree with u to a certain extent i think that left of centre and right of centre arguments are still valid however as i have said above this is an article on economics not politics so it should refer as u say to established economic sources rather than the popular media which i agree can lead to recentism which contains much hysteria and very little anylsis of the actual cause and effect.

Digmores (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is both economic and political - economic policies have consequences, and require political action to impliment. But there is no need to place it in the political spectrum.  TFD (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As an ideology, neoliberalism impacts on the political as well as the economic sphere, also in the fields of society, culture and law. There are good academic sources for the effects of neoliberalism in each of these spheres. The key thing about neoliberalism is that it is big and insidious enough to go well beyond traditional party boundaries, and, as the establishment ideology has been present as the 'common sense' of the leaders of both right wing and ostensibly left wing parties. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 15:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources you are citing are all from leftists or have as their sources leftists. They are all critical to that thing you call neoliberal. In that case you are not talking about the ideology neoliberalism but about the label. The label that leftists give to economic liberalism. For that label everybody are neoliberals, Social democrats, democrats, conservatives etc. It's a label because for pro-market policies there is already a name and it's economic liberalism. The ideology on the other hand is left center and I have provided sources for it. That is the american neoliberalism, there is also a german ideology called neoliberalism and that too is left center (see the german wikipedia entry). So all the ideologies called neoliberalism are left center. The label is a straw man, there is no consensous that all the economic liberal policies fall under that name. Maybe there is a consensus in the left wing but not in general. Truth 00:02, 24 May 2010 (CET)

im not sure wat sort of point ur trying to make in ur third sentence it seems to be filled with emtionally charged language.

Digmores (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that neoliberal policies have been implemented by parties across the political spectrum: communist (China), socialist (NZ), liberal (US), Christian Democrat (Germany), conservative (UK) and right-wing (Chile). TFD (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * i get that bit but i dont understand what he means in this part "as the establishment ideology has been present as the 'common sense' of the leaders of both right wing and ostensibly left wing parties" so question wat do u mean by establishment ideology and commen sense. thats my question  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it means that it is the ideology of the business and political elites and that no matter what someone's political persuasion they can only govern within the neoliberal paradigm. There is no other way.  In that sense it is similar to embedded liberalism, policies that all parties followed whatever their core beliefs.  TFD (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea that "neoliberalism" is the "establishment" ideology in Britain is ludicrous. When Brown was Prime Minister he extolled Keynes in his attempt to spend his way out of recession, a policy which is totally and utterly opposite to "neoliberalism".--Britannicus (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They were temporary measures during a recession, which is exactly what Reagan and Thatcher did in the early 80s. Despite the rhetoric, there was no reformulation of economic policy.  TFD (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * TFD has interpreted my argument correctly. By 'establishment' and 'common sense' I mean that since the 70's neoliberalism has been the hegemonic paradigm. look up hegemony. Plenty of authoritative published sources back this explanation. The arguments for labelling 'neoliberalism' a left of centre ideology are utterly confused - 4 Deuces has it right on this where he points out the wide variety of political backgrounds of neoliberal regimes. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neoliberalism is left of center, see the sources that I provided in wikipedia entry, see also the wikipedia entry for example of Washington Monthly (e.g. The politics of the Monthly are left of center). You use it as a label for economic liberalism. For example see this quote from the Library of Economics and Liberty 'This morning, Scott Sumner has an excellent post on economic growth and the extent to which it is due to what he calls "neoliberal" reforms. He never defines "neoliberal," but it's clear from the context and the specific policies that he names that he means "liberal" in the original sense of the word: smaller government as a % of GDP, lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, etc.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.215.215 (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * such an outlook is one of classical liberalism, which in my country (Australia) is support by centre right party for about the last 50 or so years.

Digmores (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

i would disagree with ur second statement(as i understand it of course) that a dominant group imposes its will on society or there is concensus in that society. The experience of neoliberalism in my own country at least has been implmentation of neoliberal reform by economic liberalists who sat in the fringes of the two main political parties but by crossing party lines to a certain extent where able to implment incrediably unpopular economic reform on the majority from a position of weakness. also if the sources controdict my rambling could u post them so i could read up and make an informed decision.


 * P

Digmores (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Digmores, you'll find plenty of material backing up the point that neoliberalism has been the hegemonic ideology by typing 'neoliberal paradigm' or 'neoliberal hegemony' into google. The phenomenon you describe, where political parties talk populist but act neoliberal is repeated all over the world, and by people from all kinds of points of political origination. When Rome was hegemonic, all roads led there, in todays international political establishment 'all roads lead to neoliberalism'. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 14:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * the point i was trying to make was that one should not apply a blanket label to neoliberalism and assume that it is the hegemonic ideology throughout the world in fact there can be instances where neoliberal policys have been implmented against the will of dominant group by "rebels" who have gained control at a moment in history. one of the other big issues with neoliberalism is that many countries "claim" to be neoliberal but they are very social democrat or moving in that direction.  Case in point the united states since the 1950s there has been broadening of social welfare and military spending while a reduction in the tax base due to "Neoliberal Economic Reform".  a microeconmic example in the USA closed shop unionism is illegal but has many loopholes in so that the union movement in quite a few states can function as closed shop unions.  So I think that when saying that neoliberalism is accepted by many nations and that all roads lead to it you have to take into account what neoliberal policies they implment and how they actually turn out i.e. are they implmented properly, you dont get ponts for trying to reform the economy.  Also a google search does support the idea that Neoliberalism is a hegemonic ideology but i also found that there were alot and a mean a very large proportion of pages that look at neoliberalism from communist/socilist/anarchist perspective, if you have found other to sugest hegemonic ideology and u believe that there are good sources post them on my talk page because im genuinly interested and would like to have a look.Digmores (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are in fact nations that challenge the neoliberal paradigm (e.g., Venezuela) and political parties that follow neoliberal policies grudgingly. But that does not stop it from being the hegemonic ideology throughout the world.  TFD (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Hegemony' is a bit of a lefty word, ever since Gramsci it's been used by lefties who want to feel intellectual, if you search 'neoliberal paradigm' you will find more of the non-lefty pages. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please explain.  In what way is opposition to liberalism left-wing?  have you never heard of conservatism?  TFD (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you never heard of Marxism? That is after all based on a rejection of liberalism, economic and political.--Britannicus (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Conservatism and Marxism are not the same thing - please provide a source that they are. TFD (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You asked in what way is opposition to liberalism left-wing, I provided the answer.--Britannicus (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposition to liberalism may come from the left or the right. In fact liberalism is normally considered neither left nor right.  TFD (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Liberalism (in the British sense) is neither left nor right, but surely we are discussing Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism (in the sense of this article) is frequently attacked from the left, in that it leads to inequality: e.g. Vijay Prashad and Naomi Klein, as well as those mentioned in the article. On the other hand, John Ralston Saul cricises it more for its intellectual flaws. BritishLib (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Although Neoliberalism is considered right of centre by the many critics mentioned (and appears to be so in outcome if not in aspiration), John Ralston Saul (The Collapse of Globalism) supports the idea that it was part of an unquestioned consensus. He calls the consensus Globalism, defined as the complete dismissal of 'the state' - ie all governments and public bodies. He clearly considers Neoliberalism as an intellectual component of Globalism. He does, however claim that the consensus was breaking down by 2003. Clearly the reactions to the banking crisis reasserted the value of government action, even in economic management. BritishLib (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Monthly use of Neoliberalism is completely different from the meaning being discussed here. There are other topics for whether this is a POV meaning, and whether (and where) to describe the meaning used by Peters. Whatever you may think of it, this specific meaning is widely used, perhaps more outside the U.S. It is hard enough to come to a conclusion about this topic without introducing other discussions. BritishLib (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Riversider2008's original point that "neoliberalism" was put into practice by Thatcher and Pinochet, and later by Clinton and Blair, in no way proves (or even implies) that the it can't be defined as an ideology of either the left or the right. The problem with that analysis is, Clinton and Blair are in no way men of the left. Riversider simply listed two right-wing and two center-right political leaders who all adopted neoliberal economic policies. It's a conservative ideology, end of story. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence my use of the words "ostensibly left wing" higher up this page. I was pointing out the flaws in the arguments of those who are trying somehow to locate neoliberalism as a 'left of centre' ideology. I don't think you can describe neoliberalism as 'conservative' either. It is/was a powerfully destructive ideology towards any institution that no longer serves the purposes of finance capital, including some of those cherished by conservatives. One of the problems about attempts to define ideology I've come across on WP is that many editors are thinking in terms of a simple left-right continuum, the field of ideology is far more complex than such a model can sustain. Conservatism and Neoliberalism are very different ideologies representing very different economic and political strategies, (one is a shield, the other is a sword), but they are both in the final analysis, ideologies of the right, in that they are different approaches to defending the interests of ruling monied elites. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 08:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Neoliberalism of Charles Peters
The first paragraph, defining Neoliberalism in terms of Peters's ideas should not be on this page. His manifesto is in the mainsteam of American Liberalism, ie left-leaning, not the market-based ideas described later. The latter ideas, and the association with the word Liberalism, were popularised by Milton Fiedman in Capitalism and Freedom. Could this paragraph be moved to a different page, and added to the disambiguation? BritishLib (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, although called US liberalism "left-leaning" is an exaggeration. In fact Peters was not the first person to use the term "neoliberalism" and the term "new liberalism" had also been used before.  The current use of the term dates to the 90s.  There is no evidence that this term is currently used in the US.  I have removed the paragraph.  TFD (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Argentina Case Study
Once again I have posted the case study of Argentina as a reason why neoliberalism does not necessarily work with developing nations. Please feel free to discuss this here before randomly deleting, for I will keep posting it. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erocifellerskank (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand neoliberal section
I think the New Zealand section of this article by juxtaposing the neoliberal reforms with New Zealanders quality of life etc etc kind of implies that New Zealand is a happy country because of the reforms in the 80s, which is not necessarily the case? By putting the paragraphs next to each other it sort of implies they are logically tied, which is a pretty big assumption - I think New Zealand would still be happy and have high human development scores even (some might say despite) the neoliberal reforms that happened?

I'm new here so I'm not quite sure what protocol is so I thought I'd just chuck in my two cents ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballofstring (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A brief history of Neoliberalism.
A brief history of Neoliberalism can be found in a book with the same words in its title, authored by David Harvey: ISBN 0199283273 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.213.216 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also a youtube video of lecture "A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David ..." can't add the link, because I'm in the library, where youtube is prohibited ;o( 129.69.141.80 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This Page Doesn't Actually Help Define Neoliberalism
I've been working on the shock therapy page and I wanted to add a lot more about neoliberalism than I had there at the time (especially to the theory section), as it's fairly important to the article. So I read this page for information. In doing so, it made me realise that I wasn't any wiser about what neoliberalism actually was after I'd read it. Oh, there's lots of descriptions of how it's been practised by various countries, but little about why. I did use the links to get to Friedman's and von Hayek's entries and there they led me on to the rational expectations and efficient markets hypotheses with explanations as to how these views had evolved from these two authors' views. This article mentions these theories (briefly, somewhere...). To my eyes they seem pretty vital, but hey, what do I know? This doesn't make sense. Aphenine (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The topic title above expresses my concerns exactly. I came to read this article because I heard the term "neo-liberalism" used by a pundit. I wanted to know what that meant. The whole article seems to consist of arguments, overt or veiled, for and against neo-liberalism. Much more space should be devoted to very objective discussion of what it means, if everyone agrees on that, or a discussion of variant meanings, and disagreements, but not from an "interested" point of view. It seems not entirely coincidental that passages in this article have serious weaknesses in the writing. The whole impression is more of heated argument than careful and scholarly explanation. Words and thoughts chosen carefully and dispassionately would not be so sloppily committed to publication. VanArtGuy (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above two posters. I would also like some examples of self-professed neoliberals... if there are any. Right now, "neo-liberalism" appears to be a vague conflation of libertarianism, George W. Bush's so-called "compassionate conservatism," and progressivism that is insufficiently progressive. Dausuul (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To understand the term better it would be necessary to refer more to the use of it, it is at least asymmetrical and disputed. The German article on Neoliberalismus describes this interesting phenomenon much better and highlights the different use (not use) of the term in social and economic sciences…  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.43.176 (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

New introduction proposed
I propose a number of changes to this article, which I will discuss here before editing anything at all. To start, I believe the introduction (lede, lead, summary) is seriously misleading in presenting a subjective viewpoint as objective fact.

The introduction, asserts that 'Neoliberalism' describes something. That's incorrect as a matter of logic. It is a word used by people doing the describing, and is not a neutral word, being used almost exclusively by people critical of what they label as neoliberalism. That's a point I will make in a separate post about the body of the article. Suffice it to say here that the definition of the term is under dispute by notionally left- and right-wing political commentators, in and out of the academy.

On that basis I propose changing the introduction to read:


 * Neoliberalism (also used as neo-liberalism) is a label applied to political economy that favours non-interventionist economic policies based on neoclassical economic theories, which emphasize the importance of relatively open markets, trade liberalization and the efficiency of private enterprise.


 * The term neoliberalism has also been adopted in some perspectives on cultural studies to describe a supposedly prevailing international ideological paradigm ... [the rest unchanged]'

I believe the present assertion about either neoliberalism or its supposed adherents using these theories to 'determine' the political and economic priorities of the state is a highly tendentious argument that needs to be proposed as a carefully referenced section, not as a foregone conclusion. I note that such a section exists at present only in embryonic form, and scattered throughout the article. Until it is present in a less ephemeral state, the wording should not exist in the introduction.

I am also keen to remove the direct referencing of assertions in the introduction, those references properly belonging in the body of the article. I see my re-wording as underwriting a greater neutrality of the opening and offering a proper place for the references in the description of the various points of view.

If there are no objections to my phrasing above, I will make the changes in the next couple of days sometime. Otherwise, please share your views here. Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   04:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy implications
The section entitled 'Policy implications' is not only in the wrong place (it should occur after definitions and history), it is also plainly preposterous. Neoliberalism does not seek anything. Politicians labelled as neoliberals might, but to make that point would require a listing of politicians who fit that description, and justification for including those politicians in that list. I suggest that's a long and unencyclopaedic fool's errand. No two political leaders labelled neoliberal implemented exactly the same policies for the same stated reasons.

John William's hypothetical Washington Consensus is exactly that, hypothesis. There is no single document signed by leaders in Washington, entitled 'Washington Consensus'. As such the supposed consensus is not a definitive statement, though it may be labelled as such by a source: without that source (reference) this assertion becomes opinion and should be removed.

The points listed as characterising the Washington Concensus appear to be more or less accurately paraphrased from Williams, but do not belong here so much as the history or definitions section.

I don't yet have precise wording in mind to replace this section yet, but I announce my intention to -
 * 1) move it below sections on definitions and history; and
 * 2) re-write it to ensure opinion is identified as such, and appropriately referenced.

Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   08:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has objected, I have made several edits along the line of what you suggested. In particular, I removed some obvious POV material disguised as uncontroversial facts, reduced (but did not remove) a very excessive section on a specific research paper, and in general tried to edit some parts of the articles that were intentionally obscurantist or borders on name-calling rather than objective narration (such as the undue generalization of "neoliberalism" or "Washington Consensus" that you mentioned). 128.151.150.17 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Radical editing proposed
The entire article after the history section appears to be an extended argument against various national economic policies notionally associated with neoliberalism, but does nothing to describe neoliberalism itself. It is assertion as objective reality for a debate that has not yet concluded in the academy. Moreover, it looks far too much like David Harvey's exposition of the topic to be above suspicion of point of view replication.

As such, I propose a radical edit to remove the academic argument, or proofs of theory, altogether, focusing on a description of neoliberalism only.

A much condensed version of the passages I propose for removal might have a place under the single heading of 'Opposition to neoliberalism'.

Your views sought urgently so I can work up the wording. Regards — Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter


 * Would you mind holding off on a giant edit? I've been doing a lot of reading on the subject of neoliberalism and the like, and I've been slowly writing up some sections.  Currently, I'm writing an Extended Definition section, which tries to define neoliberalism accurately.  I think I'm doing a good job, although it's very, very hard work getting it all balanced and scholarly.


 * In having written as much as I have, I've realised that rewriting that the History section needs to be done from the ground up. If one wanted to put a complete history of neoliberalism now, I realise now that one has to start with a short history of liberalism in the 19th century.  Then there needs to be something about the Austrian school and Hayek and Mises in the 1920s-30s, moving on the the post-WW2 neoliberal consensus before coming to the 1970s where neoliberalism was actually first tried, as well as the explosion of economic liberalism.  Then one has to chart the various strains of neoliberalism as they were tried, evolved and developed, starting with Chile, moving through Thatcher and then Reagan (e.g. New Labour in the UK is an evolved form of economic neoliberalism, even though it's technically not a neoliberal ideology because of its government management of social and environmental policy).  Finally, the modern movement ending with Argentina and the Credit Crunch.  It's a lot of work, and it's pretty scary, and the current section, even were you to rehash it a bit, would never do the article justice.


 * I agree and second most of your proposals as pretty sensible. You're absolutely  right about the introduction and the policy implications.


 * If you'd like to, we could exchange some of the ideas we're thinking of? Both of us are planning fairly radical edits and it would be good to get advice and opinion off each other before we commit to an edit.  I'm also sure we could successfully cross-pollinate our ideas.  At the very least, we don't want to step on each other's toes as we edit.  For example, if I put up some of my draft thoughts on line, would that be useful to you?


 * Aphenine (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new wording
Half the section entitled history, including the sections on embedded liberalism to the section Chingao School are in fact irrelevant pre-history, whose only purpose here sems to serve to propose an entirely one-sided ideological perspective on neoliberalism as a pejorative description of policies properly lebelled something else, such as monetarism, intervention, non-intervention, deregulation, globalization, etc.

I propose to replace the history section as follows (proper referencing format to be applied in article but not here).


 * History
 * David Harvey, in his book A Brief History of Neoliberalism did not provide an origin for the term, but suggested that it referred to economic and political perspectives originated by a group of "academic economists, historians, and philosophers" centred on Austrian economists Ludvig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, Austrian philosopher Karl Popper and American economist Milton Friedman, who formed the Mont Pelerin Society, after the Swiss Spa where the initial meeting of the society was held in 1947, whose aims included promoting "the desirability of the rule of law", and of "private property and the competitive market". (p 19-20)


 * Steger and Roy, in their book Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction proposed that the term neoliberalism is ambiguous and derived from South American econcomic policies in the 1970s that were labeled 'neoliberalismo', a term subsequently adopted by "left-leaning critics" who had "imbued 'neoliberalism' with pejorative meanings" linked to an alleged "Washington Consensus" about "institutions and policies" apparently "designed by the United States to globalize American capitalism and its associated cultural system," leading some critics to dismiss the term as an effort to diminish the work of "Nobel-prize winners Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek". (p x)


 * Debate
 * Social justice activist, and political and social scientist Susan George described neoliberalism as originating from "a tiny embryo at the University of Chicago with the philosopher-economist Friedrich von Hayek and his students like Milton Friedman at its nucleus" and serving a purpose of developing "a huge international network of foundations, institutes, research centers, publications, scholars, writers and public relations hacks to develop, package and push their ideas and doctrine relentlessly" to make "neo-liberalism seem as if it were the natural and normal condition of humankind". (1999)


 * Economist Jose Gabriel Palma defined the motivations of supposed adherents to neoliberalism as an effort "to reformulate the political and the social in a way compatible with the 'rationality of the (unregulated) market economy'". (2009, p 840)


 * Institute of Public Affairs research fellow Chris Berg wrote in 2009:
 * But what on earth is it? As Andrew Norton of the Centre of Independent Studies has pointed out, 'neo-liberal' is not a term people ever use to describe themselves; it is a term used exclusively by its critics:


 * "Using 'neo-liberal' is code for 'I am a left-winger who does not like markets'. It is a leftist version of the secret handshake; a signal that the reader is with fellow travellers."


 * In many ways, the phrase 'neo-liberalism' is an anachronism. What could possibly be 'neo' about a philosophy of government that stretches back to well before Adam Smith?


 * Examples


 * Steger and Roy stated that:
 * Over the last quarter century, 'neoliberalism' has been associated with such different political figures as Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Augusto Pinochet, Boris Yeltsin, Jiang Zemin, Manmohan Singh, Junichiro Koizumi, John Howard, and George W. Bush. But not one of these political leaders has ever publicly embraced this ambiguous label - although they all share some affinity for 'neoliberal' policies aimed at deregulating national economies, liberalizing international trade, and creating a single global market. (p x.)

End of proposed wording. Comments please. Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk   00:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The blurring of social and market values
I find this paragraph singularly uninformative:


 * Socially, neoliberalism is marked by the return of class rules and the blurring of social and market values. Assuming this perspective is true [why?], neoliberalism can be viewed as a domino-effect concept. On one end, once a state-run industry is handed over to the private sector, there is little telling in how far privatization will manipulate that industry to fit their [whose?] economic needs. The other portion of this statement implies [how?] that once neoliberal policies are adopted by governments, they are modeled by other states and often expanded upon to insure an even more positive economic benefit. Therefore [wherefore?], neoliberalism is a constant in the equation of the current era of market globalization. This is precisely why neoliberalism is not only considered an economic concept, but also a geographic one.

Can somebody clarify what this is supposed to communicate before I delete it? - Calmypal (T) 16:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. THere might be a good idea in that text somewhere, but as it stands it's pretty unhelpful. Deleted. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong
This line in the "Hong Kong" section appears to be inaccurate, or at least outdated:

"Further it extends no unemployment benefits, enacts no labour legislation, provides no social security and no national health insurance."

Unemployment-Related Assistance System of Hong Kong (a government document from 2000) states that Hong Kong has (or had) no unemployment insurance or assistance scheme, but also states that it does have a program called Comprehensive Social Security Assistance intended to "always provide the ultimate support to meet basic needs.". Employment in Hong Kong describes some of Hong Kong's labour legislation, such as rights to paid holidays and redundancy pay, and a requirement for employers to insure against the risk of injuries at work. I don't know what the author means by "social security", but CSSA and SSA (as described in Retirement Benefits in Hong Kong) should cover it. Health in Hong Kong refers to 38 public hospitals. Fees and Charges for Health Care Services lists the fees charged for these. These are not normally high enough to cover the cost of treatment for a Hong Kong resident, and recipients of CSSA are exempt, so the term "national health insurance" seems appropriate.

As the claims of economic growth all seem to be focussed on various periods in the 20th century, it might be more appropriate to phrase the section in historical terms rather than simply remove these claims, perhaps with reference to how these aspects of "neoliberalism" came to be abandoned.

I don't feel qualified to do this myself, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoeuidhtns (talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that Hong Kong now has some labor legislation, including an effective minimum wage. However, it didn't have any for most of its history, and I think that's the focus of the section. The rest of your comment (social security and health insurance) is inaccurate. There are social programs in these areas, but not of the sort that appears in Western welfare states. 128.151.150.17 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Neoliberalism is a term describing"
This is a really bad way to begin an article. Every topic is 'a term describing'. WP on bad articles says "sometimes, a Wikipedia article (particularly stubs) will be badly written. Its introduction will say something such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine.". Such articles are not dictionary articles. They are badly written encyclopedia articles, that should be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings such as "is a term for", "is a word that means", "refers to", with the very simple "is": "A dog is an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." "A dog is a domesticated canine." I understand why people keep restoring this beginning, or use phrases like 'a label for' - it gives a false feeling of protection when dealing with a contraversial term, a bit like putting on gloves to handle radioactive matter, but it destroys clarity, what is important about neoliberalism is not that it is "a term" or "a label", but what it means in terms of policy and practice. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 08:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem in this case is that neoliberalism has widely different meanings depending on context. It is not a technical term; it is a label, and an often derogatory one. Take the example of the article Nigger - we don't say "A nigger is a black person", but rather that it is a pejorative term used to describe black people. 128.151.150.1 (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that every topic on WP could just as easily begin with the phrase is 'a term describing' or 'a label for' or 'refers to'. Neoliberalism is not solely a perjorative term, it is not a term with the same bloodstained and shameful history as the term you use. It is a term widely used by academics from many backgrounds in serious discourses. Should we start the article on Communism with 'communism is a term describing' because the word 'communist' is so often used as a perjorative insult? These are redundant words, that cloud rather than clarify and lead to a clunky and illogical style of writing, especially in the first sentence on the page. It's made clear very soon after in the same paragraph that the term is often used perjoratively, though as a discussion higher on this page points out, it is usually a term used neutrally, and even sometimes positively. The whole purpose of the word you use is to be insulting. Most academics do not use neoliberalism in this way, it's purpose is simply to be a description of a set of policies and assumptions shared by the political and economic establishment across the world over the last 30 years.<strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 14:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence is well worded, far less clumsy than 'a term describing', and noone can dispute its veracity, but today the term is not only used by 'opponents' of neoliberalism, but also quite extensively by neutral academics and political observers, and even as I've demonstrated, even a small number of the 'neoliberals' themselves. I also think it's far too strong putting it right at the beginning of the article - a short paragraph on the origin of the term within the body of the text would present a better balance and provide ample sufficiency <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 22:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a controversial term that I have generally seen used by critiques of economic liberalism and have rarely heard from liberal economists. That seems to be several other peoples' senses here as well, though not yours. Since this seems a continuing source of strife on this article, reflecting an actual controversy, I think we need to at least justify whichever way we're presenting it. Instead of just reverting the latest edit (which changed it to "label" in the lead sentence), I put a "citation needed" on it. I'd like to see some more research on the usage of the term instead of just reverting back and forth, though there may be an argument for moving this into its own section instead of having it be in the lead sentence. I've made a tiny start down in this discussion, but there's more work to do. Statisfactions (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it deserves a prominent location since it is still controversial. (Note Jagdish Bhagwati putting it in 'scare quotes' in an article from last year: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2010/09/bhagwati.htm ) But I agree the first sentence is too strong--I've moved it to the end of the first paragraph. Let me know what you think. Statisfactions (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've squared the circle there Statisfactions, well done. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 17:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please define "Equality"
This article uses the word "equality" 20 times with respect to the authors obvious bias against Neo-Liberalism but the idea with respect to economics is not defined. Does it mean equality of economic opportunity or equality of distribution of economic means? Or does the author mean some utopian idealogy based on a Marxist worldview? Who gets to decide what equality is? This article is badly biased presenting no opposing opinions or arguments in favor 76.183.101.153 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest the article is studiously neutral, and if anything slightly pro-neoliberalism in tone until you finally arrive at the final fifth of the piece titled 'opposition', which by nature will be a section explaining problems with and objections to neoliberal ideas, policies, values and practices, even this section is very subdued in comparison with much of the literature on the topic. As for defining 'equality', is that really the purpose of an article on neoliberalism? Surely that's more a task for the WP article on Equality? Though I agree with you if your point is that we need to word the article to be more specific about the various kinds of inequality that the anti-neoliberalism literature asserts that neoliberalism creates. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 08:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

How many crashes needed to prove failure?
Seriously. How many crashes are needed to prove that neoliberalism has failed? We've had 2 major crashes in less than 100 years that have completely ruined the world economy.

To have the Argentine economic crisis (1999–2002) but not the Late-2000s financial crisis is completely disingenuous. They both need to be part of this article. --JLAmidei (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not disingenuous at all. Neoliberalism is one approach to managing capitalism, it does not mean capitalism in general. The Argentine economic crisis has been related directly by scholars to structural adjustment programmes. The current crisis has not been related to neoliberalism in particular (which is more than just government deregulation). It wasn't acts of privatisation or government cuts that led to this particular crisis.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alan Greenspan's decisions as Fed chairman says differently. The economic crisis is neoliberalism whether you believe it or not.--JLAmidei (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * JLA, it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) matter what individual editors believe. What matters to WP editors is what the published reliable sources say. If you can find authoritative material linking the crises you mention to causes rooted in neoliberalism, and you can reference it as such, it will improve the article, if not, then wait till such material is published, otherwise WP will class it as WP:OR. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 13:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Political Freedom
"However, despite what most would consider a highly objectionable context for implementation of economic liberty, Chile now enjoys the highest rate of GDP per capita in Latin America; this lends strong credence to the assertion that economic freedom is more important to prosperity than are democratic institutions"

This section completely omits the fact that although Chile's GDP per capita increased due to Pinochet's neoliberal policies, Chile remains one of the most unequal countries in Latin America with a Gini coefficient of .777. There is also a huge disparity between GDP per capita and average wages. Actually, this section is misleading by even mentioning GDP per capita instead of overall GDP.

169.229.118.28 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, certainly a lot of neoliberals are beginning to wonder if democratic institutions are neccessary for their project at all - making moves like replacing elected leaders with unelected technocrats in Greece and Italy for example. They've looked at nations like Chile, and even more so China (which is currently the most efficient economy in the world in terms of the production of billionaires). Neoliberals are not particularly concerned by the inequalities you mention, believing that eventually wealth 'trickles down' to the rest of society <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it misleading to mention GDP per capita instead of overall GDP? GDP per capita is the traditional measure of "economic prosperity." That's why China, which has the second-biggest GDP in the world but a huge number of people to split it among, is considered a "developing" country, whereas, say, Sweden has way smaller GDP but much bigger GDP per capita and thus is considered a "rich" country. Statisfactions (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Replacing the government of Greece with a new group of people who understand the Greek economy and have the skills to mitigate its problems is not a neoliberal policy. It's a sane policy. There isn't some sinister "neoliberal" force here picking new governments. bobrayner (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly sane policy if you accept neoliberal precepts that everything else must reflect the supremacy of the market. It used to be that governments were replaced by democratic elections. Today you're right that there is no sinister or hidden force picking new governments for nominally democratic nations, that force is in plain sight and is called 'the market'. <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 10:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"A label for"
Can I refer the IP that keeps reinserting this to the discussion higher up this page headed 'a term describing'. Writing 'a term describing' or 'a label for'in the first sentence of an article is a redundancy in encyclopedic terms, since every heading in an encyclopedia is a term describing or a label for something. It is therefore illogical to write it, and very poor grammar. The guidance WP:NAD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary says quite clearly:

sometimes, a Wikipedia article (particularly stubs) will be badly written. Its introduction will say something such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine." Such articles are not dictionary articles. They are badly written encyclopedia articles, that should be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings such as "is a term for," "is a word that means," "refers to," with the very simple "is": "A dog is an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." "A dog is a domesticated canine." (See: Writing better articles: Avoid using "refers to") It's also totally unneccessary to add this, as the point behind it has already been made, just a few words later in the first paragraph. "The label "neoliberalism" was created by its ideological opponents,[citation needed] but it has also been used by proponents of neoliberal policies" <strong style="color:green;">River sider <strong style="color:blue;">( talk ) 12:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)