Neoliberalism as concept

Abstract

This paper is a critical exploration of the of the term neoliberalism. Drawing on a wide range of literature across the critical social sciences and with particular emphasis on the political economy of development, it evaluates the consequences of the term's proliferation and expanded usage since the 1980s. It advances a case that neoliberalism has become a deeply problematic and incoherent term that has multiple and contradictory meanings, and thus has diminished analytical value. In addition, the paper also explores the one-sided, morally laden usage of the term by non-economists to describe economic phenomena, and the way that this serves to signify and reproduce the divide between economics and the rest of the social sciences.

Keywords:

• neoliberalism
• political economy
• market reform
• governmentality
• development studies

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank seminar participants at the London School of Economics and anonymous reviewers from Economy and Society for comments on earlier drafts. All shortcomings are my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. This also includes ‘neo-liberal’ and ‘neo-liberalism’.

2. On conceptual critiques of neoliberalism, see in particular Barnett (2005), Kipnis (2007, 2008), Hilgers (2011), Wacquant (2012), Goldstein (2012), Collier (2012), Peck and Theodore (2012), Jessop (2013), Mains (2012).

3. See in particular Barnett (2005) for a critique of Gramsci–Foucault hybrids, and Jessop (2007), Larner (2000) and Springer (2012) in their defence.

4. Gore (2000) describes this as a ‘Southern consensus’, as the convergence between East Asian developmentalism and Latin American neostructuralism.

5. Based on searches of ‘neoliberal’ and ‘neoliberalism’ in JStor, Google Scholar and individual online journal archives.

6. For example, see Harvey (2005) on neoliberal theory and: Paul Bremer (p. 7), Milton Friedman (p. 8), its incoherence (p. 21), its monetarist guise (p. 22), the state (p. 64), poverty (p. 65), its respect for constitutionality (p. 66), technological change (p. 68), divergences between theory and practice (pp. 70–74).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rajesh Venugopal

Rajesh Venugopal is Assistant Professor in the Department of International Development at the London School of Economics.