Power in neoliberal thought

Abstract

The paper examines how questions of power are addressed in neoliberal thought. The thesis underlying this endeavor is the following: all varieties of neoliberal thought harbor a blind spot regarding various forms of power. This means that certain power effects are overlooked or systematically brushed aside by definitional fiat. The paper aims to validate this thesis by discussing two leading proponents of neoliberal thought whose respective approaches to the issue of power can be considered representative of neoliberal theory in general: Friedrich August von Hayek and Walter Eucken. While Hayek attempts to marginalize certain forms of economic power through a strict focus on a narrow understanding of coercion, Eucken confronts the issue of market power directly. Still, he in turn remains oblivious not only to the power effects of his own ‘scientific’ discourse but also the subjectivating power of markets to mold ‘entrepreneurial subjects’.

Keywords:

• power
• Hayek
• Eucken
• neoliberalism
• Foucault

Notes

1. For similar accounts that stress the historical context of neoliberalism’s emergence see Peck (2008, 2011) and Turner (2007). For the following, see also Biebricher (forthcoming).

2. For a similar four-dimensional view see Barnett and Duvall: ‘… conceptual distinctions of power should be represented in terms of two analytical dimensions that are at the core of the general concept: the kinds of social relations through which power works; and the specificity of social relations through which effects on actors’ capacities are produced’. The resulting four forms of power are coercive, institutional, structural and constitutive (Barnett and Duvall 2005, p. 42). For an equally expansive approach, see Clegg (1989).

3. It should also be noted that I am not concerned with the normative status of power in the present context. For a discussion of the relation between empirical and normative aspects of power, see Haugaard (2010).

4. It is only used in an unspecific sense in phrases like ‘the government’s power to intervene should be circumscribed’ and is exclusively reserved for the political sphere.

5. To be precise, Hayek at one point refers to the ‘coercive power of the state’ (Ibid., p. 120) but there is nothing to indicate that this reference is deliberately introduced to broaden the understanding of coercion to include collective organizations or even institutions as well.

6. Incidentally, this is exactly the setting for one of the most insightful theoretical–empirical analysis of power relations by Gaventa (1982) called Power and powerlessness. Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian Valley.

7. Note however that Hayek at times refers to ‘voluntary adult actors’ and thus seems to exclude children (Hayek 2009 [1960], p. 127).

8. All translations from German are mine.