1. The History of Neoliberalism
Just as the term ‘capitalism’ was developed as a word to critique the alternative of the mercantilist concepts Adam Smith sought to change, the term ‘neoliberalism’ developed as a means of diminishing and misrepresenting a straw man of classical liberalism.[1] The concept surrounding the idea of economic freedom and traditional liberalism will be compared and contrasted with the ideas of neoliberalism and the historical changes that have led to widespread misrepresentation of the term.
Like more traditional free-market thinkers, including Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, and Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman was a classical liberal.[2] Yet Friedman, who coined the term neoliberalism, would have claimed to be a neoliberal if neoliberalism accurately represented classical liberalism with improved concepts of economic theory. By tracing the history of the term neoliberalism, this article will demonstrate how the notion of classical liberalism has changed from one of freedom to one of centralised government and administrative oversight.[3] In defining liberalism, “[t]he possibility of coordination through voluntary cooperation rests on the elementary—yet frequently denied—proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bilaterally voluntary and informed.”[4] That is, exchange occurs without coercion. Such creation of coordination through voluntary exchange is at the heart of what Friedman saw as competitive capitalism.
In writing about the problems with mercantilist systems and the capture of markets, Adam Smith said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.”[5] Unfortunately, the often misunderstood or overlooked aspect of Smith’s work is that he was not looking to protect large industries but rather interested in how to best benefit the consumer. Unfortunately, the neoliberal capture of free-market economics has undermined classical liberalism by creating a new meaning of liberalism.[6] When Mises wrote about liberalism, he defined the word from its Latin roots—the term liber, meaning freedom.[7] To claim or subvert the term liberalism, neoliberal supporters of international institutionalism and those implementing structuralist ideas[8] have redefined it for their own interests by creating a straw man of liberal supporters of free markets. They posit that classical liberalism promoted systems of “greed is good” capitalism, which I argue was never the real aim of such theorists promoting free-market economies.[9]
2. The Death of Traditional Liberalism
The origins of liberalism and its sub-theory of neoliberalism evolved during the Age of Enlightenment, an intellectual and philosophical revolution of 17th- and 18th-century Europe, which promoted values of free thought and scientific discourse.[10] Such ideas and values inspired the thinkers of the late 19th century to reconsider systems that had previously been considered beneficial and positive for society.[11] By merging the idea of a tabula rasa (clean slate)with a progressivist idea derived from Plato’s theory of being able to recreate man, many late 19th-century liberals sought a methodology to recreate culture and society.[12] Unfortunately, such individuals abandoned the foundations of liberal freedom in trying to meld society with their ideals.
As with other followers of Saint-Simon and Hegel, such as Marx, Western post-enlightenment teaching sought to both discover the science of humanity as David Hume had sought to conceive it and integrate the science of history in “historism”, in a manner analogous to what Hayek would refer to as “scientism”.[13] U.S. President Woodrow Wilson embraced such concepts of progress, seeing them as a way to use academic knowledge and the ideas of an intellectual elite to create a system that would propel society forward.[14] Yet, it was the introduction of German philosophical concepts designed to “fix society”, using methodologies such as Bismarckian state socialism, that promoted the concept of a “third way”, a theory of reconciling right-wing and left-wing opponents, in a manner that John Maynard Keynes would later promote.[15] Keynes argued that the government needed to intervene in capitalist systems to regulate them. This led to a middle-way path between socialism and laissez-faire economics.[16] In addition, the economic concept of “progressivism” was promoted as a methodology that would remove the predations of laissez-faire capitalism and stop the control of individuals in a plutocracy.[17] Unlike de Tocqueville, who saw economic freedom as one of America’s greatest strengths[18], the progressivist movement saw the state replacing local communities and individually founded civic organisations with “coercive philanthropy”.[19]
R.T. Ely managed to extend his ideas through the indoctrination of Thomas Woodrow Wilson during his tenure as a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins University.[20] Wilson took German political theory and concepts of bureaucratic administration and developed them into a framework for a new progressive attack on individual liberty and property rights.[21] Emulating the concepts of Ely in promoting “the state as an educational and ethical agency whose positive aid is an indispensable condition of human progress”, Wilson and the early proponents of neoliberalism sought to integrate scientific methods and techniques that would aid in influencing government policies, the people, and international society.[22]
Unfortunately, progressive theorists often saw the average person as “generally either selfish, ignorant, timid, or a fool”.[23] As with other adherence to the German schools of philosophy in the 19th-century, the Wilsonian doctrine maintained a Platonic distaste for democracy and the common person.[24] With these Hegelian and Platonic concepts of rule by the intellectual elite, Wilson sought to integrate and greatly extend the German concept of the professional bureaucratic mechanism initially implemented by former US Presidents Ulysses Grant and, later, Chester Arthur.[25] This bureaucratic system removes many of the constitutional controls limiting the growth of government.[26]
3. The Wilsonian Era and the Creation of the Fed
The birth of neoliberalism started with the politicisation of business and capital between the First and Second World Wars. The introduction of political scientism, and the belief that all social systems can be measured and the behaviours analysed through objectively scientific principles, has led to a redefined version of corporate governance and garnered stakeholder-based governance that promotes a highly distorted idea of Milton Friedman’s concept of shareholder value.[27] In implementing such a system, the widespread concept being promoted is aligned strongly with the principles of Karl Marx.[28] Sowell explains this throughout his work on Marx.[29] This work documents the foundations of the Marxist attack against liberalism and enlightenment thought.
Marx argued that scientifically backed bureaucratic processes would allow the government to manage society with far less waste compared to a system emerging from market capitalism. Instead, rigid bureaucracy and the growing scope of government services have led to a self-contradictory and anti-liberal system that seeks to repress many aspects of human nature. In detailing the free market, Friedman noted that the problem with a free market is that it is so difficult for people, including government officials, to shape it to their own will.[30] As Friedman noted, “[the market] gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want.”[31]
Friedman foresaw a radical difference in the 19th- and 20th-century liberals. In particular, he argues how the 20th-century liberals replaced a belief in voluntary arrangements with a reliance upon the state.[32] Hence, the Wilsonian doctrine of “administrative questions are not political questions”, in which the bureaucracy should be removed from politics, is one that Friedman argued against, noting that “economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society.” According to Friedman, in economic arrangements, the idea of ‘economic freedom’ is a means of achieving the overall goal of freedom. Secondly, he argues that economic freedom can be a key means of achieving political freedom.[33] To be free, people in society must act to maintain their rights. Achieving economic and political freedom requires effort from those within society.
Friedman saw the growing power of the state and how many bureaucratic functions had been taken out of the political process. Whilst the size of government remained limited until after World War II, it has been the base of the administrative system outside of direct political control or democratic consensus that Friedman would see as the biggest threat to liberalism and freedom. The administrative system promoted by Dwight Waldo and others saw a distinction between value and fact. Removing the political choice behind bureaucratic functions left the concepts of value to be decided outside of the range of a democratic process. Instead, public administration became “active, informed, politically savvy agents of change”.[34]
Waldo's publication and review of the administrative state demonstrated the flaw in ignoring the intertwined nature of politics and bureaucracy.[35] Unfortunately, many progressive reformists have missed the message concerning the intertwined administration of government functions and how these cannot be conducted purely scientifically.[36] These professional state administrators assumed the role of many political functions that would have been left in a democratic system to the voter or the market and free choice. Waldo did not object to the notion of professional administrative control but rather saw an objection in calling this process “scientific”, which assumed that scientific and administrative neutrality was an achievable goal in a political world.[37]
The creation and growth of the Federal Reserve Bank was another intervention that slowly eroded 19th-century liberal freedoms. For all of the claims of independence, the notion of presidential power was recognised from the start of the Federal Reserve.[38] As Forder notes, the Federal Reserve was not intended to be outside political control.[39] Rather, it was to be independent from banking interests, not the government. During the Reagan presidency, a gradual development of independence followed, removing some of the acquired power attributed to the bureaucracy. However, the result was a continuing growth within the bureaucracy.
Wilson had argued that the Federal Reserve must be a system based on centralised control in the hands of the government that was “public, not private, must be vested in the government itself, not the masters of business”.[40] Through this, the argument for freedom is against a hypocritical move to centralise power in the hands of the political elite. Conversely, the proposal by Milton Friedman was to remove political power from the Federal Reserve.[41] Equally, the fact that Friedman sought to define monetary policy placed them in opposition to many more radical libertarians.[42]
Like Hayek and Mises, Friedman did not see monetary policy outside political control. Rather, these economists saw the importance of allowing democratic processes to interact and select how the monetary policy and functions of the government operate.[43] However, as Mises noted, the word liberalism and Neoliberalism has come to represent government intervention and welfare state programs.[44] United States Senator Joseph Clark Jr. stated this reversal in the meaning of how the word liberalism had changed:
“To lay a ghost at the outset and to dismiss semantics, a liberal is here defined as one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice at the municipal, state, national, and international levels. This concept is an extension of Webster's dictionary definition of a liberal as "A member of a party claiming to advocate progress or reform; not conservative." A liberal believes government is a proper tool to use in the development of a society which attempts to carry Christian principles of conduct into practical effect. Needless to say, however, there are many devout Christians among the conservatives.”[45]
Classical liberalism has been altered into something different from Neoliberalism, as Mises and Friedman espoused.[46] Through this, we see the subversion of liberalism through the introduction of state power in the guise of “coercive philanthropy”.[47] As Butler notes, the concepts behind classical liberalism may be traced back to Anglo-Saxon England and largely developed through concepts such as the common law, the setting of rules through legal processes including juries and widespread trust in common knowledge and “the people”.[48]
Bureaucracy and Systems that Become Entrenched
Friedman demonstrated that bureaucracy becomes entrenched and continues to operate well beyond its need while providing solutions to this dilemma.[49] Following researchers such as Drucker, it has been demonstrated that bureaucratic functions of government consolidate power past the need for departmental function.[50] From this, it becomes important to remember how power corrupts.[51] The difficulty in this method results from the Wilsonian separation of administrative functions of government and the political power structure that may be voted in and out in a democratic system.
While Tilman accepts that bureaucracies are unlikely to relinquish power, the author argues that Friedman is inconsistent in creating a utopia characterised by the removal of government intervention.[52] The argument is that no government will naturally relinquish power in a modern economy; hence, Friedman’s concepts can never be achieved. However, while systems such as “school choice” and voucher systems introduced as a concept by Friedman have been demonstrated to work well, other authors have noted that political constraints limit the ability for these solutions to be introduced.[53]
Innovation and Change
One of the biggest ironies that had accompanied the change in nomenclature that is associated with Neoliberalism now from the time when Milton Friedman stated that he was a new type of classical liberal is the move away from small government as a prime reconceptualisation of freedom into the embedding of government into the common discourse on liberalism. As Friedman argued, moving away from authoritarian government and economic control and introducing a more laissez-faire economic policy led to “an enormous increase in the well-being of the masses”.[54] However, the outcome of the two World Wars saw an increasing intervention of government and economic affairs and a move toward collectivist ideals.[55]
As welfare replaced freedom as the dominant goal of democratic governments, the separation of administrative and political functions increased. Naturally, this led to a number of reactions, such as the publication of “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayek and the objectivist movement by Ayn Rand.[56] However, even at this early point, authors such as Drob responded to the works of Hayek and others, noting that they believed that democracy needed planning.[57] But, of course, with the growing separation of the bureaucratic and political functions, the planners would not be subjected to political control. Instead, in true Wilsonian form, the people would be given a patina of democratic control and power whilst the true administrative power and the system would be taken out of the hands of the ‘hoi polloi’, who these lawmakers believed to be largely ignorant about economic policies.
Whilst respondents to Hayek such as MacLeod[58] noted how the systems of socialism in the United Soviet Socialist Republics and other Communist countries were not truly Socialist in a ‘no true Scotsman’ argument, Friedman stated that “democratic socialism” is at best a “contradiction in terms” based on “intimate connection between economic arrangements and political arrangements, and that only certain combinations are possible”.[59] In this, Friedman argued that the control of the economy and the separation of administrative power in the government from political ends leads to the decay of the free society. But, importantly, the freedom in economic arrangements, and the indispensable means that this provides, are necessary to achieve political freedom.[60]
Separating government bureaucratic control from the developed political system involves the lack of checks and controls within a capitalist commercial structure. In Friedman’s version of the laissez-faire system, failing corporations are not bailed out when they have economic problems, leading to a scenario where extreme risk-taking within the later 20th century is disincentivised.[61] The bureaucratic link between large corporations that are too big to fail and a bureaucracy that is taken out of the political structure is more reminiscent of a mercantilist system Adam Smith wrote against rather than a capitalist structure promoted by liberal reformers.[62]
As noted by Robinson and others, Neoliberalism was slowly becoming a new term for the resurgence of a slightly-altered form of mercantilism.[63] Through the erosion of political controls over the government functions, bureaucratic systems could grow beyond the system of need-based regulation into a system that persisted in the form of a capitalist business when it became obsolete or would not diminish in size as public servants fight to maintain their budgets. Consequently, government departments operate without the necessity for innovation or change and, in many cases, are implemented to ensure the change does not occur.[64] As Niskanen argued, bureaucratic functions seek to maximise the total budget and power controlled within the bureau.[65]
4. The Early Mont Pèlerin Society
The Guardian quoted Milton Friedman as saying, “I believe a relatively free economy is a necessary condition for freedom. But there is evidence that a democratic society, once established, destroys a free economy”. [66] While widely reported, the quote differs substantially from the official interview transcripts and the statement in Friedman’s work, “Capitalism and Freedom”.[67] Friedman promoted the concept of differentiating political and economic power and, through this process, noted that political power remained a zero-sum game. In contrast, economic power and wealth may be expanded. Milton Friedman demonstrated how Wilson’s progressivist tradition became the heart of Neoliberalism and replaced the concept of freedom with one of beneficent government oversight.
“When the question arises at what level of government something should be done, the twentieth-century liberal is likely to resolve any doubt in favor of the more centralized level—the state instead of the city, the federal government instead of the state, a world organization instead of a federal government. The nineteenth-century liberal is likely to resolve any doubt in the other direction and to emphasize a decentralization of power.”[68]
Cornelissen argued that the Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS) acted in the second half of the 20th century to fight against a democratic policy that aided economic interventions and destroyed the market mechanism.[69] As with other scholars, Cornelissen contends that the MPS was acting against democratic rule and the rights of the people. However, as noted above, the members of the MPS saw growing divisions between the administrative and political structures, and it sought a solution in constitutional reform that would limit the ability of bureaucratic functions to gain excessive power. In this, it could be argued that the MPS was not fighting democracy but rather seeking a means to stop populist demagoguery from undermining the very system that gave them power in the first place.
Plato noted that limits must exist to stop the rise of the populist leader in the form of a demagogue.[70] The constitutional limits discussed by the MPS reflect the classical limitations noted by Aristotle and implemented within the foundation of the Republican system in the United States.[71] The Republican system promoted by Aristotle and initially implemented within the United States aimed to balance power between multiple entities and limit the ability of any to act against the interest of any minority. Yet, some intellectuals seeking to portray the discussions of individuals, including Friedman, in the light of a collectivist conscience have painted the limitations of the system and the limits imposed upon a demagogue in a negative light.[72] Simultaneously, these authors have put the issues of repression in dictatorships in the light of a problem caused by economic freedoms.[73]
The growing influence of Keynes and the Wilsonian agenda was promoted by many in government as this increased the power and control within government.[74] As Bjerre-Poulsen notes, this opposition to the growing power of political elites promoting central planning put the MPS into the role of the liberal counter-establishment.[75] In each argument for liberalism, the opposition is the collectivist ideal of the growing power of governing elites unchecked by the democratic process.
While Fischer provides a polemic against Friedman and his role in reforming the Chilean society and economy, few note the changes in the regime.[76] First, the introduction of free-market policies shifted the role of the people in government within Chile.[77] The repressive policies of the punisher government predate the implementation of economic reforms by more than a decade. Consequently, the common argument to blame neoliberal policies on the difficulties of the Chilean political scenario is causally unsound. Rather, the changes within Chile through the implementation of classical liberal market structures led to the reforms and clinical objections that themselves toppled the Pinochet government and introduced democratic reform.[78]
Many of these reforms continued in other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, introducing market reforms and privatising many entrenched bureaucratic systems.[79] But, as Friedman notes, the promise of freedom embodied within the United States Constitution gives the framework that protects the people against the government and even the predations of the majority.[80] Importantly, Friedman notes that “the scope of government must be limited. Its major function must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow citizens”.[81] The position taken by Friedman and other members of the MPS was not contradictory, as Cornelissen contends.[82] Rather, Friedman saw that the role of government was to limit the majority's ability to oppress the minority in a population.[83]
The members of the MPS held a view that was analogous to the framers of the original United States Constitution and its alignment with the values of the Scottish Enlightenment.[84] In such a system, economists such as Friedman recognised that no vision exists between homo politicus and homo economicus. Instead, in a series of political and market constraints, only homo sapiens exist.[85] The caricature of Friedman and other Liberal economists as heartless competitors promoting greed at all cost is a strawman argument.[86] In promoting a limited form of democracy controlled by a constitution, Friedman and others sought to ensure that the resentment of individuals who felt left out would not lead to the minority being exploited by the majority. The free-market concept promoted by Friedman sought to allow social mobility and meritocracy such that the most adept in society could arise through developing new corporations and creating wealth.
As Brennan demonstrates, the market is a better coordination system, even given a (falsely assumed) perfect human nature and morality, than central planning and socialism.[87] Bregman argues that the ideology of liberalism is dying.[88] In some ways, the move towards a post-truth society where it is more important not to offend people than to ensure that free speech and traditional enlightenment values of truth and integrity are maintained is undermining the enlightenment experiment in freedom. The argued view that Neoliberalism promoted selfishness and a cynical view of human nature led to growing inequality are not supported by the arguments of Friedman and others who did not see human nature are self-centred but rather focused on family and our immediate social groups.[89] Without free speech, gendered and racial minorities remain weak and without a voice. For people to obtain equity of power, they must be able to freely argue and debate alternative positions.
Friedman would, in many ways, support the assertions of Putnam concerning the decline of civil society and would not argue that the decline is based on human selfishness but rather the assumption of many decentralised roles of clubs and groups that individuals used for social connections and in increasing associations with others by the state.[90] The dream of economists such as Friedman or Hayek was for a system of small decentralised spheres of government and not an increasingly powerful central government.[91] Desmet provides a detailed argument about how removing individual rights, free speech and education concerning truth lead to growing totalitarian characteristics within society.[92]
In arguing that capitalism is equivalent to mercantilist systems, many authors have equated the exploitation of vulnerable people, such as that by King Leopold II in the Congo, with capitalism.[93] Foucault would argue that the growth in economic power diminished the political power of people.[94] Yet, as Friedman demonstrated, political power acts under a zero-sum game, whereas economic power can be expanded and created without limit.[95] More critically, Friedman demonstrates that economic power acts as a limit to political power.[96] Despite this and the arguments presented on a Thatcher or Reagan government seemingly decreasing the size of the bureaucracy, the government and Presidential power in the US expanded during each of these political regimes.[97]
5. Conclusion
The modern assault on democracy and Friedman’s ideals is noted as a doctrine that the “market exchanges an ethic itself”.[98] However, such a perspective creates a strawman argument of individuals such as Friedman, who argued that the market forms an impersonal mechanism to separate the economic activities of individuals from their personal characteristics, such as race or gender.[99] It is this separation of economics and politics that promotes both personal freedom and political freedom. Nevertheless, the purported function and structure of political economies noted by authors such as Harvey are diametrically at odds with the descriptions of Neoliberalism presented by Friedman.[100] No system provides perfect opportunities but a free-market allows those who work and create the have opportunities. Unfortunately, people confuse virtue and wealth and fail to understand that the market rewards those who give society what it wants, not those who act virtuously.
The introduction of neoliberalism as a state-managed welfare structure is Orwellian doublespeak in the best traditions of the term.[101] The difficulty with approaching the issues of how Friedman would perceive neoliberalism in the context of his adherence to constitutional controls over an unrestricted democracy comes from the distinctions and whether the analysis was conducted against a liberal system of small government or a system of welfare economics. Friedman and others from the Mont Pèlerin Society saw a constitutional democracy as an essential component of freedom. Yet, with other members of the MPS, Friedman understood that a pure democracy could be subverted through populist politics and the tyranny of the majority.[102]
Consequently, Friedman and others saw the same requirements as the framers of the United States Constitution in ensuring that constitutional controls would be implemented to minimise the power of the majority to oppress the minority in a society. The ability of populist demagogues to use differences in economic power to gain political power underlies the necessity for constitutional protections to be enabled to protect the freedom and rights of individuals to hold property and maintain liberty. Unfortunately, the subversion of the term liberalism has changed the nature and understanding of the system from one of freedom to one of welfare. As Burgin demonstrated, liberals such as Hayek were greatly concerned about the accesses and problems with capitalism but saw that replacing them with bureaucratic structures was not a reasonable solution.[103]
Bibliography
Adcock, Robert, Mark Bevir, and Shannon C. Stimson. Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880. Princeton University Press, 2009.
Begg, Clive. ‘The “Third Way” in Action: Inclusion at a Cost’. The University of Queensland, Australia, 2002.
Berger, Stefan, Mark Donovan, and Kevin Passmore. Writing National Histories: Western Europe Since 1800. Routledge, 2002.
Brill, Abraham Arden. Basic Principles of Psychoanalysis. University Press of America, 1985.
Burgin, Angus. The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Depression. Harvard University Press, 2012.
Cerny, Philip G. ‘Embedding Neoliberalism: The Evolution of a Hegemonic Paradigm’. The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 2 (1 January 2008). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-G-Cerny/publication/253399605_Embedding_Neoliberalism_The_Evolution_of_a_Hegemonic_Paradigm/links/5846868a08aeda69681e4a6f/Embedding-Neoliberalism-The-Evolution-of-a-Hegemonic-Paradigm.pdf.
Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2022.
Ely, James W. ‘THE PROGRESSIVE ERA ASSAULT ON INDIVIDUALISM AND PROPERTY RIGHTSa’. Social Philosophy and Policy 29, no. 2 (July 2012): 255–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052511000252.
Frederickson, H George. Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications: Origins, Developments, and Applications. 1st ed. Routledge, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315700748.
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, 2020.
Hayek, F. A. v. ‘Scientism and the Study of Society. Part I’. Economica 9, no. 35 (1942): 267–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2549540.
———. ‘Scientism and the Study of Society. Part II’. Economica 10, no. 37 (1943): 34–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/2549653.
Laughlin, J Laurence. ‘The Study of Political Economy in the United States’. Journal of Political Economy 1, no. 1 (1892): 19.
Leibniz, G. W., and Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibniz. Leibniz: New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Kay & Troutman, 1847.
———. The Correspondence of John Locke. Clarendon Press, 1976.
MACLEOD, A. M. ‘Justice and the Market’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 13, no. 4 (1 January 1983): 551–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1983.10715852.
Mintzberg, Henry, Robert Simons, and Kunal Basu. ‘Beyond Selfishness’. MIT Sloan Management Review 44, no. 1 (Fall 2002): 67–74.
Mises, Ludwig von. Liberalism. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/18236.
Nelson, Robert H. Economics as Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond. Penn State University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780271066196.
Niskanen, William A. ‘The Peculiar Economics of Bureaucracy’. The American Economic Review 58, no. 2 (1968): 293–305.
Pestritto, Ronald J. Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.
Raico, Ralph. Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012.
Rockefeller, Steven C. ‘John Dewey, Spiritual Democracy, and the Human Future’. CrossCurrents 39, no. 3 (1989): 300–321.
Rosser, Christian. ‘Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative Thought and German Political Theory’. Public Administration Review 70, no. 4 (6 July 2010): 547–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02175.x.
Saad-Filho, Alfredo, and Deborah Johnston, eds. Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. Pluto Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18fs4hp.
Schwartz, Mark S., and David Saiia. ‘Should Firms Go “Beyond Profits”? Milton Friedman versus Broad CSR1: BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW’. Business and Society Review 117, no. 1 (March 2012): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00397.x.
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: By Adam Smith, ... J. J. Tourneisen; and J. L. Legrand, 1791.
Smith, Woodruff D. Politics and the Sciences of Culture in Germany, 1840-1920. Oxford University Press, 1991.
Snowdon, Christopher. ‘Selfishness, Greed and Capitalism: Debunking Myths About the Free Market’. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 23 December 2014. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3123672.
Sowell, Thomas. ‘Marxism, Philosophy and Economics’. Studies in Soviet Thought 38, no. 3 (1989): 245–47.
Thies, Clifford F., and Gary M. Pecquet. ‘The Shaping of a Future President’s Economic Thought: Richard T. Ely and Woodrow Wilson at “The Hopkins”’. The Independent Review 15, no. 2 (2010): 257–77.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. The Recollections of Alexis de Tocqueville. Macmillan, 1896.
White, Hayden, and Leonard P. Wessell,. ‘Karl Marx, Romantic Irony, and the Proletariat: The Mythopoetic Origins of Marxism’. Studies in Romanticism 21, no. 1 (1982): 105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25600339.
Wrenn, Mary V. ‘Agency and Neoliberalism’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 39, no. 5 (2015): 1231–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu047.
[1] Mary V. Wrenn, ‘Agency and Neoliberalism’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 39, no. 5 (2015): 1231–43, https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu047.
[2] Ralph Raico, Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School (Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012).
[3] Clarke, S., 2005. The neoliberal theory of society. In Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston, eds., Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader (Pluto Press, 2015), 59, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18fs4hp.
[4] Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press, 2020), 51–52.
[5] Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: By Adam Smith, ... (J. J. Tourneisen; and J. L. Legrand, 1791), 54.
[6] Philip G Cerny, ‘Embedding Neoliberalism: The Evolution of a Hegemonic Paradigm’, The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 2 (1 January 2008): 1–46, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-G-Cerny/publication/253399605_Embedding_Neoliberalism_The_Evolution_of_a_Hegemonic_Paradigm/links/5846868a08aeda69681e4a6f/Embedding-Neoliberalism-The-Evolution-of-a-Hegemonic-Paradigm.pdf.
[7] Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), https://muse.jhu.edu/book/18236.
[8] Jan Selby. "The myth of liberal peace-building." Conflict, Security & Development 13, no. 1 (2013): 57-86.
[9] Christopher Snowdon, ‘Selfishness, Greed and Capitalism: Debunking Myths About the Free Market’, SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 23 December 2014), 177, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3123672.
[10] Woodruff D. Smith, Politics and the Sciences of Culture in Germany, 1840-1920 (Oxford University Press, 1991).
[11] Steven C Rockefeller, ‘John Dewey, Spiritual Democracy, and the Human Future’, CrossCurrents 39, no. 3 (1989): 300–321.
[12] The essay by Locke did not refer to a child as a formless blank slate in a way that has been commonly misrepresented and taken by subsequent authors such as Brill. Rather, critical attacks on Locke's work by Leibniz reference these terms in a manner that both misrepresents Locke and falsely attributes this undefined term to misrepresent Locke's characterisation that all learning is inscribed from the senses. William Molyneux correspondence with Locke used the terminology Tabula Rasa in documenting a translated understanding of Aristotle. See:
John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Kay & Troutman, 1847); Abraham Arden Brill, Basic Principles of Psychoanalysis (University Press of America, 1985); G. W. Leibniz and Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibniz, Leibniz: New Essays on Human Understanding (Cambridge University Press, 1996); John Locke, The Correspondence of John Locke (Clarendon Press, 1976).
[13] See: Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, and Shannon C. Stimson, Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880 (Princeton University Press, 2009); Stefan Berger, Mark Donovan, and Kevin Passmore, Writing National Histories: Western Europe Since 1800 (Routledge, 2002), 30–31; F. A. v. Hayek, ‘Scientism and the Study of Society. Part II’, Economica 10, no. 37 (1943): 34–63, https://doi.org/10.2307/2549653; F. A. v. Hayek, ‘Scientism and the Study of Society. Part I’, Economica 9, no. 35 (1942): 267–91, https://doi.org/10.2307/2549540.
[14] Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005).
[15] PaulClive Begg, ‘The “Third Way” in Action: Inclusion at a Cost’ (Queensland, The University of Queensland, Australia, 2002).
[16] Davidson, Paul. "Keynes’s Middle Way: Liberalism is Truly a New Way." In John Maynard Keynes, pp. 13-17. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2007.
[17] Robert H. Nelson, Economics as Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond (Penn State University Press, 2015), https://doi.org/10.1515/9780271066196.
[18] Norbert Brockman. "Laissez-Faire Theory in the Early American Bar Association." Notre Dame Law. 39 (1963): 270.
[19] Alexis de Tocqueville, The Recollections of Alexis de Tocqueville (Macmillan, 1896).
[20] Clifford F. Thies and Gary M. Pecquet, ‘The Shaping of a Future President’s Economic Thought: Richard T. Ely and Woodrow Wilson at “The Hopkins”’, The Independent Review 15, no. 2 (2010): 257–77.
[21] Christian Rosser, ‘Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative Thought and German Political Theory’, Public Administration Review 70, no. 4 (6 July 2010): 547–56, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02175.x; James W. Ely, ‘THE PROGRESSIVE ERA ASSAULT ON INDIVIDUALISM AND PROPERTY RIGHTSa’, Social Philosophy and Policy 29, no. 2 (July 2012): 255–82, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052511000252.
[22] Ely quoted in: J Laurence Laughlin, ‘The Study of Political Economy in the United States’, Journal of Political Economy 1, no. 1 (1892): 19.
[23] “The Study of Administration” by Woodrow Wilson quoted in: Brooks, R.P., 1925. Prepresidential Days. The Georgia Historical Quarterly, 9(3), pp.246-252.
[24] H George Frederickson, Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications: Origins, Developments, and Applications, 1st ed. (Routledge, 2015), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315700748.
[25] Frederickson.
[26] Fritz Sager and Christian Rosser. "Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of modern bureaucracy." Public Administration Review 69, no. 6 (2009): 1136-1147.
[27] Henry Mintzberg, Robert Simons, and Kunal Basu, ‘Beyond Selfishness’, MIT Sloan Management Review 44, no. 1 (Fall 2002): 67–74; Mark S. Schwartz and David Saiia, ‘Should Firms Go “Beyond Profits”? Milton Friedman versus Broad CSR1: BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW’, Business and Society Review 117, no. 1 (March 2012): 1–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00397.x.
[28] Hayden White and Leonard P. Wessell, ‘Karl Marx, Romantic Irony, and the Proletariat: The Mythopoetic Origins of Marxism’, Studies in Romanticism 21, no. 1 (1982): 105, https://doi.org/10.2307/25600339.
[29] Thomas Sowell, ‘Marxism, Philosophy and Economics’, Studies in Soviet Thought 38, no. 3 (1989): 245–47.
[30] Friedman, M., 2020. Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago press.
[31] Ibid. p. 19.
[32] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom.
[33] Martin, D.W., 1988. The fading legacy of Woodrow Wilson. Public Administration Review, pp.631-636.; Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 46.
[34] Appe, S., Rubaii, N. and Whigham, K., 2021. Expanding the Reach of Representativeness, Discretion, and Collaboration: The Unrealized Potential of Public Administration Research in Atrocity Prevention. Public Administration Review, 81(1), pp.81-90.
[35] Waldo, D., 1965. The administrative state revisited. Public Administration Review, 25(1), pp.5-30.; Svara, J.H., 2008. Beyond dichotomy: Dwight Waldo and the intertwined politics–administration relationship. Public Administration Review, 68(1), pp.46-52.
[36] Cook, B.J., 2014. Bureaucracy and self-government: Reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics. JHU Press.
[37] Waldo, D., 1952. Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review, 46(1), pp.81-103.
[38] Willis, H.P., 1925. Politics and the Federal Reserve System. Bankers' Magazine (1896-1943), 110(1), p.13.
[39] Forder, J., 2003. ‘Independence’and the Founding of the Federal Reserve. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 50(3), pp.297-310.
[40] Abrams, R.M., 1956. Woodrow Wilson and the Southern Congressmen, 1913-1916. The Journal of Southern History, 22(4), pp.417-437. Forder, J., 1996. On the assessment and implementation of ‘institutional’remedies. Oxford Economic Papers, 48(1), pp.39-51.
[41] Friedman, M., 1985. The case for overhauling the Federal Reserve. Challenge, 28(3), pp.4-12.
[42] Rothbard, M.N., 2002. Milton Friedman Unraveled. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 16(4; SEAS AUT), pp.37-54.
[43] Friedman, M., 2007. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 173-178). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[44] Von Mises, L., 2012. Liberalism. Liberty Fund.
[45] Clark Jr., J., 1953. Can the Liberals Rally?. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1953/07/can-the-liberals-rally/376242/> [Accessed 23 December 2021].
[46] Brennan, J. and Tomasi, J., 2012. Classical liberalism (pp. 115-132). New York: Oxford University Press.; Barry, N., 1987. On classical liberalism and libertarianism. Springer.
[47] Ely, 2010. Philanthropy. pp. 83-112. Gorgias Press.
[48] Butler, E., 2015. Classical Liberalism–A Primer. London Publishing Partnership.
[49] Hess, F.M., 2010. Does school choice “work”. National Affairs, 5(1), pp.35-53.
[50] Shkop, E.M., 2003. Educational Vouchers: In Confrontation with Bureaucracy. Journal of Jewish Education, 69(1), pp.8-22.
[51] Acton, L., 1887. Power tends to corrupt. a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April, 3.
[52] Tilman, R., 1976. Ideology & Utopia in the Political Economy of Milton Friedman. Polity, 8(3), pp.422-442.
[53] Viteritti, J.P., 2010. School choice and market failure: How politics trumps economics in education and elsewhere.
[54] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 49.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Hayek, F.A. and Caldwell, B., 2014. The road to serfdom: Text and documents: The definitive edition. Routledge.; Rand, A., 1990. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition. Penguin.
[57] Drob, J., 1945. Democracy is not doomed!: An answer to Friedrich Hayek.
[58] A. M. MacLeod, ‘Justice and the Market’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 13, no. 4 (1 January 1983): 551–61, https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1983.10715852.
[59] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 45.
[60] Ibid. p. 45-46.
[61] Lindsey, B. and Teles, S.M., 2017. The captured economy: How the powerful enrich themselves, slow down growth, and increase inequality. Oxford University Press.
[62] Tame, C.R., 1978. Against the New Mercantilism: The Relevance of Adam Smith. Il Politico, pp.766-775.
[63] Robinson, J., 1966. The new mercantilism: An inaugural lecture. CUP Archive.
[64] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 6.
[65] William A. Niskanen, ‘The Peculiar Economics of Bureaucracy’, The American Economic Review 58, no. 2 (1968): 293–305.
[66] Slobodian, Q., 2019. Democracy doesn’t matter to the defenders of ‘economic freedom’ | Quinn Slobodian. [online] The Guardian.
[67] Friedman, M., 2020. Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago press.; Note also that the quote differs from that presented in a variety of other texts and sources includingFriedman, M., 2017. Milton Friedman on freedom: Selections from the collected works of Milton Friedman. Hoover Press.
[68] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 42.
[69] Cornelissen, L., 2017. ‘How can the people be restricted?’: the Mont Pèlerin society and the problem of democracy, 1947–1998. History of European Ideas, 43(5), pp.507-524.
[70] Landauer, M., 2019. 6. Demagoguery and the Limits of Expert Advice in Plato’s Gorgias. In Dangerous Counsel (pp. 149-178). University of Chicago Press.
[71] Galston, M., 1994. Taking Aristotle seriously: Republican-oriented legal theory and the moral foundation of deliberative democracy. Cal L. Rev., 82, p.329.
[72] Mirowski, P. and Plehwe, D. eds., 2015. The road from Mont Pèlerin: The making of the neoliberal thought collective, with a new preface. Harvard University Press.
[73] Phillips-Fein, K., 2015. 8. Business Conservatives and the Mont Pèlerin Society. In The Road from Mont Pelerin (pp. 280-302). Harvard University Press.
[75] Bjerre-Poulsen, N., 2014. The Mont Pèlerin society and the rise of a postwar classical liberal counter-establishment. In Transnational Anti-Communism and the Cold War (pp. 201-217). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
[76] Fischer, K., 2009. 9. The Influence of Neoliberals in Chile before, during, and after Pinochet. In The road from mont pelerin (pp. 305-346). Harvard University Press.
[77] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 16.
[78] Barr-Melej, P., 2002. Reforming Chile: cultural politics, nationalism, and the rise of the middle class. Univ of North Carolina Press.
[79] Ip, G. and Whitehouse, M., 2006. How Milton Friedman changed economics, policy and markets. The Wall Street Journal, 17.
[80] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 38-39.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Cornelissen, 2017. ‘How can the people be restricted?’. History of European Ideas, pp.507-524.
[83] Smith, E.J., 1991. Ethnic identity development: Toward the development of a theory within the context of majority/minority status. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(1), pp.181-188.
[84] McGinnis, J.O., 1997. The original Constitution and its decline: a public choice perspective. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 21, p.195.
[85] McGinnis, J.O., 1997. The human constitution and constitutive law: A prolegomenon. J. Contemp. Legal Issues, 8, p.211.
[86] Snowdon, 2014. Selfishness, greed and capitalismInstitute of Economic Affairs Monographs, Hobart Paper, 177.
[87] Brennan, J., 2014. Why not capitalism?. Routledge.
[88] Bregman, R., 2020. The neoliberal era is ending. What comes next?. The Correspondent, 14.
[89] Ibid.
[90] Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and politics (pp. 223-234). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
[91] Worth, O., 2017. Reviving Hayek’s dream. Globalizations, 14(1), pp.104-109.
[92] Mattias Desmet, The Psychology of Totalitarianism (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2022).
[93] Friedman, H.H., Friedman, L.W. and Adel, S., 2017. Conscious capitalism vs. rapacious capitalism: Lessons from King Leopold II. Friedman, Hershey H., Friedman, Linda W., & Edris, Sarah (2017). Conscious Capitalism vs. Rapacious Capitalism: Lessons from King Leopold II. Business Quest, pp.1-20.
[94] Zamora, D. and Behrent, M.C. eds., 2016. Foucault and neoliberalism. John Wiley & Sons.
[95] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 55-56.
[96] Ibid. p. 55.
[97] Borcherding, T.E. and Lee, D., 2002. The growth of the relative size of government (No. 2002-05). Claremont Colleges Working Papers.
[98] Harvey, D., 2007. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, USA.
[99] Friedman, 2020. Capitalism and freedom. p. 237.
[100] Harvey, 2007. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, p. 161.
[101] Bhabha, H.K., 2010. Doublespeak and the Minority of One. In On Nineteen Eighty-Four (pp. 29-37). Princeton University Press.
[102] Volk, K.G., 2009. The Perils of" Pure Democracy": Minority Rights, Liquor Politics, and Popular Sovereignty in Antebellum America. Journal of the Early Republic, 29(4), pp.641-679.
[103] Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Depression (Harvard University Press, 2012).