The question of whether neoliberalism is “dead or alive” cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. Instead, neoliberalism should be understood as a dynamic and evolving paradigm rather than a static ideological corpse.
Neoliberalism emerged in the late 20th century as the world’s most dominant economic and political paradigm, rooted in principles of free markets, deregulation, privatization, and the reduced role of the state in economic life. Under leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and later in the policy frameworks of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and others, neoliberal ideas reshaped global capitalism and governance. This influence stretched from advanced economies to transitional and developing states across Latin America, Asia, and Africa.
However, the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 marked a profound challenge to neoliberal orthodoxy. The crisis revealed vulnerabilities in laissez‑faire markets and financial systems, leading to economic volatility, inequality, and mounting public disillusionment. As mainstream policy failed to prevent crisis or ensure broad prosperity, nationalist and populist movements gained traction by criticizing neoliberal globalization and advocating for economic protectionism and sovereignty. Figures like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, and Jair Bolsonaro illustrate how backlash against neoliberalism has shaped the political landscape in the 2010s and beyond.
For the perspective a transnational sociologist: a renowned political scientist and scholar of globalization and political ideologies, Manfred B. Steger, Neoliberalism today exists in multiple forms rather than a singular, monolithic force. It has been weakened in its classic form—particularly in terms of unrestrained financial liberalization and unfettered global markets—but it has not disappeared. Instead, neoliberalism has adapted and mutated. Economic elites and governing elites in many nations still rely on market‑oriented policies even as they adopt selective regulatory interventions and nationalist rhetoric. In other words, neoliberal ideas continue to shape policy outcomes, albeit often in diluted or hybrid configurations.
This adaptability suggests that neoliberalism is not dead, but rather transformed and contested. Rather than disappearing entirely, neoliberal thought has been challenged by rising nationalist policies, stronger state intervention post‑crisis, and calls for economic redistribution. Yet its core tenets—market primacy, private sector centrality, and global capital mobility—still influence policymaking in advanced and developing regions alike.
Steger’s analysis invites a nuanced conclusion:
Neoliberalism in its original, hegemonic form has declined in influence, particularly after repeated crises and rising populist resistance.
Neoliberal logic persists in reconfigured ways, blended with state interventions and nationalist redistributive policies.
Rather than being dead, neoliberalism has entered a phase of evolution and contestation, co‑existing with emergent political paradigms that challenge, adapt, or absorb parts of its agenda.
Thus, Neoliberalism should be seen not as a static idea that either survives or dies but as a living set of practices and beliefs that continuously recalibrate in response to global economic conditions, political conflict, and public pressures. Its influence may be diminished in some arenas and resurgent in others—but it is neither fully extinguished nor unchallenged.
Comments
Post a Comment