In some of my many interesting texts for class, I find that classical liberals are labeled neoliberals, and that there is no difference between the two. Here is an excerpt from Globalization: a critical introduction by Jan Aart Scholte:
"Neoliberalism has generally prevailed as the reigning policy discourse for globalization since the early 1980s. Most governments, including in particular those of the major power states - have adopted a neoliberalist orientation toward globalization over the past quarter-century."
It goes on to say that global institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank have "continually linked globalization with liberalization." It seems to me, given the current economic 'crisis,' that exactly the opposite has been happening. The major economies of the world have become less and less liberal. We all know it is anti-liberal policies, such as control of the money supply by central banks, that has been the primary culprit of the problem.
I am wondering if this is a mischaracterization of true liberalism? Or is their a schism within liberalism, say between the Austrian school and other forms?
Thanks
Tyler
It pretty much looks like nonsense. Neoliberalism is a modern form of corporatism. It has little to nothing to do with classical liberalism, or at least as little to do with it as modern "liberalism".
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I figured as much. It seems the author, like so many people, does not understand economics. It's just the widely held myth, despite all of the interventionism etc, the US is a free market. I bet in 5-10 years time if the dollar system hasn't fully collapsed, people will still be blaming the 'evils' of the free market for a whole host of problems.
Thanks for your post
And also, to answer my question, it does appear that classical liberals are being misrepresented, in supposed scholarly books as well. Not surprising, but true nonetheless.
Jon Irenicus: It pretty much looks like nonsense. Neoliberalism is a modern form of corporatism. It has little to nothing to do with classical liberalism, or at least as little to do with it as modern "liberalism".
Many people I know call themselves "neoliberals", and by that they mean "minarchist libertarian" or "classical liberal" etc. - but perhaps that's just here in Sweden. But most things today that are called "neoliberal" are in fact social democracy or something like that.
Neoliberalism is a policymaking paradigm focused on decentralization and privatization. It's not the instantiation of a particular political philosophy; it's more representative of the movement in the economics profession to advocate free-market or market-based policies. The sense of "liberal" is not explicitly a reference to classical liberal philosophy, but rather to the movement to "liberalize" markets. Examples of neoliberal policies include the sale of state-owned assets to private operators, the use of market-based permits to regulate access to scarce resources, and the contracting of third parties to perform state-sanctioned tasks rather than the use of government employees. Neoliberalism has been criticized by both people on all sides of the political philosophical discourse, including people like Becky Mansfield (decidedly not a libertarian) to people like Walter Block (clearly a staunch one) for a number of reasons, including often built-in dispossession, its "reregulating" rather than "deregulating" nature, and its continued use of central planning despite its "market-based" facade.
Some online examples of critiques of neoliberalism: Mansfield's "Neoliberalism in the oceans: "rationalization," property rights, and the commons question," Block's "Pollution Trading Permits as a Form of Market Socialism and the Search for a Real Market Solution to Environmental Pollution," and Cordato's "Market-Based Environmentalism and the Free Market: They're Not the Same." Hope that helps!