View this post on the web at [link removed]

By Anthony J Evans, Associate Professor of Economics at ESCP Business School
Thus far, debates about the term “neoliberalism” have not been particularly constructive. I believe this rests on two separate (but related) questions:
1. Is “neoliberalism” a useful concept for understanding our political and economic system?
2. Is that system desirable?
There is a lot of academic literature that is grounded in the concept and the vast majority is used to critique capitalism. Indeed, use of the term “neoliberal” overwhelmingly grew as a pejorative. With origins in David Harvey [ [link removed] ], and embodied by academics such as Quinn Slobodian [ [link removed] ] as well as writers like George Monbiot [ [link removed] ], “neoliberalism” is presented as something both real and detrimental. But there is a danger of conflating these two issues. There is a risk that the term is propagated because it serves as an effective rhetorical strategy, rather than the best means to clarify arguments. And there is a suspicion that ideological pre-commitments dominate a search for intellectual clarity. For non-Marxists and pro-market classical liberals or libertarians, is the label relevant?
Over the last decade or so there has been a notable attempt to “reclaim” neoliberalism, pushed by think [ [link removed] ] tanks [ [link removed] ] and journalists [ [link removed] ]. Strategically, it might make sense to jump on the bandwagon, because part of the battle of ideas is contributing to how terms are understood. Neoliberalism thus becomes a contested brand. You have your museum [ [link removed] ], we have our bright and optimistic Reddit thread [ [link removed] ].
But there has also been consideration to the term from academics.
Institute of Economic Affairs | Insider is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The common attitude amongst pro-capitalist scholars is to dispute the validity of the concept and ignore most of the literature as being flawed and ill-intentioned. Phil Magness has publicly rejected the label [ [link removed] ], and Vincent Geloso has cautioned against [ [link removed] ] adopting it, even for strategic purposes. Embodying the attitude of many libertarians, Robert Lawson and Phil Magness have recently published a book called “Neoliberal Abstracts [ [link removed] ]” which gathers summaries of actual peer-reviewed academic articles to highlight the plethora of absurd and baffling work being done in its name. Their contribution is funny and well timed. It also gives the impression that critics of neoliberalism have little to gain from a constructive engagement. But this would be false.
Consider the following three books: “The Neoliberal Revolution in Eastern Europe [ [link removed] ]” (written by myself and Paul Dragos Aligica), Mark Pennington’s “Robust Political Economy [ [link removed] ]”, and “Neoliberal Social Justice [ [link removed] ]” by Nick Cowen. All serious academics working in top research institutions. We are perhaps best labelled as “classical liberals” but give sufficient scope to political economy in our research objectives to justify a normative context and the validity to advocate as well as analyse alternative systems. And we have used “neoliberal” as a descriptive, neutral term. I define it as “a political and economic philosophy that emphasises the role of markets to solve social problems” but also recognise that this might be a work in progress. Ultimately, however, we all utilise the concept and can broadly be considered to be neoliberals.
In my own research, I have suggested that neoliberalism has passed through four distinct phases [ [link removed] ] and have also articulated my specific criticisms of neoliberal policy. For example, I think that two clear outcomes of neoliberalism are (i) independent and technocratic central banks; and (ii) a rejuvenation in state capitalism. Consider Alan Greenspan and Deng Xiaoping to be two of the most influential neoliberals of the twentieth century. Where I differ from strict neoliberals is that I think free banking would be a superior system to a centrally planned monetary system [ [link removed] ], and China’s economic transformation does not constitute an attractive transition plan [ [link removed] ]. Where I differ from the critics of neoliberalism, however, is to say that independent central banks are preferable to political control of the money supply, and that state capitalism is better than no capitalism. Indeed, the fact that I am pragmatic in my judgments, and recognise that context plays an important role in judging the desirability of policy action, reveals how comfortable I am with being considered part of the “neoliberal thought collective [ [link removed] ]”.
My main claim is that critics of neoliberalism should not dismiss neoliberal expertise.
If we create a matrix displaying adherence to neoliberalism as a concept, but also as an ideology, we have four distinct categories. The polar opposites of Lawson, Magness, Geloso and Harvey, Slobodian, Monbiot (who are all, in their own ways, anti-neoliberal) should not detract from the potential for a constructive academic debate that attempts to take the concept seriously.
My most recent effort to pursue meaningful scholarly enquiry is a survey of recent critical histories of neoliberalism, just published by the journal ‘Critical Review’. In it, I pay particular attention to books by Philip Mirowski [ [link removed] ], Will Davies [ [link removed] ], Thomas Biebricher [ [link removed] ], Quinn Slobodian [ [link removed] ] and Jessica Whyte [ [link removed] ]. While disagreeing with large parts of their work, I have attempted a charitable reading and to treat them respectfully.
I hope that they will read my paper and provide an appropriate response. But I won’t hold my breath – previous reviews of work by Wendy Brown [ [link removed] ] and George Monbiot [ [link removed] ] have thus far gone unanswered. I guess as long as I don’t end up in the second edition of Neoliberal Abstracts, that will be a triumph of sorts!
Anthony J. Evans is Professor of Economics at ESCP Business School. He has been an Affiliate Faculty Member on the Microeconomics of Competitiveness Programme at Harvard Business School, and a Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence at San Jose State University.
His research areas are monetary economics and transitional economics. He works on topics related to competitiveness, central banking, and neoliberalism.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?