Talk:Neoliberalism

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Thoughts on changing the short description from "renewal of concept of unfettered capitalism" to "renewal of unfettered capitalism as policy" ?

The current version feels clunky and unclear. SSR07 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I support your change: "policy" is a better way to put things than "concept". — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I support this as well, and is certainly preferable to the recent change “Pejorative term political term with competing definitions” which literally says nothing useful.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I've edited the SD for its grammar (no need to have "term" said twice...). I don't like calling it a pejorative term in the SD (because it isn't always one), though perhaps something describing the fact that its definition is contested is an improvement. Also worth considering that the current iteration is over the recommended character count, so there's little room to make it much longer. SSR07 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That it is strictly used pejoratively is disputed in the article itself, so including it in the SD as it is now is inappropriate. And describing it as a term with competing definitions is useless information and also inaccurate, especially when omitting that neoliberalism is primarily used as a description for contemporary capitalism in the vast majority of source material. The OP version is preferable to what has been proposed since.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose changing it to "political philosophy and term used by scholars and critics to describe the renewal of free market capitalism" as opposed to what exists now, "...term with competing definitions," which tells lay readers literally nothing about neoliberalism. My proposal also incorporates what was suggested in the original post ("renewal of unfettered capitalism as policy"). I will wait 24 hours before making the change.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Given you mention citing from the article, which I of course agree with, we cannot discount this, "The term has multiple, competing definitions, and is often used pejoratively." It only makes sense when a term does indeed have "multiple, competing definitions" that the short description (which is only a short description after all, it invariably WILL fall short in some way, it cannot be comprehensive and need not tell you all about the term) is found lacking in some manner. The pejorative connotation of the term is clear and "often used", whereas the term neutrally being worded as, "Term for the renewal of free market capitalism" is in fact the most pov version I think I have seen yet. We can improve it further, and I am open to suggestions. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest, "Pejorative term for some forms of capitalism", as that incorporates the "competing definitions" aspect. I do not see evidence to support the short description written as, "Pejorative and scholarly term for contemporary capitalism", since this paints the short description as too monolithic and also grants significantly more weight to a single perspective, which I am not sure if that is even the dominant perspective outside of some circles of thought. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2025(UTC)

Strongly disagree. The current version strips the term of any real meaning in order to relegate it as simply an insignificant pejorative with competing definitions used by critics when in fact numerous cited sources assert it is the most widely used term in scholarship for contemporary capitalism (not just "some forms"; it supplanted Keynesianism). It is best to go by what the sources say, and sources describe it as both a term used pejoratively (some sources say this is changing, see the IMF 2016 report for example) while some of those same sources and others describe it as a scholarly term. I'm reverting the changes to one that incorporates the whole picture. Honestly if this continues I think the best solution is to revert back to the original short description as described in the original post above before all these recent changes. The other contributor to this debate SSR07 also appears to oppose using this language stating "I don't like calling it a pejorative term in the SD (because it isn't always one)" [Bolding mine].--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Keeping your critique in mind I tried to trim it to below 40 characters which is advised on best practice for short descriptions. It is now 43, but it was 57 previously, I retained the bulk of your wording as is, though I am going to spend time over the next few days/weeks looking at sources and see if we are missing anything. Regardless, the final should always strive to be around 40 characters or less whenever possible, and should really never be near 60 or more if avoidable at all. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Pejorative is the most key word in the short description, "capitalism" could potentially be changed out for "globalist" or "free market" etc., but it is most often used as pejorative and nearly never as a self-descriptive label. You really didn't like the last one? Neutrality does not mean we scrub a term of its most frequently used connotation. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We can disagree on other aspects of the wording, and I am perfectly willing to patiently work that out to a current consensus, but the pejorative aspect of the term shouldn't be up for dispute really. On that, sources seem to not only agree, but very often use the exact label, "pejorative" to describe neoliberalism. Even when others don't, the term is often described in scathing language. Fair enough, maybe it is an evil system, but that then isn't what we would call NOT a pejorative then. If I called you a "neoliberal" for example @C.J. Griffin, would you approve of the label? Even if it is nowhere near your personal economic or other ideology, how does it make you feel to be called a "neoliberal"? Of course that isn't sufficient, the sources are our guide, but I point that out merely for illustrative purposes.

Some sources directly calling "neoliberal" a "pejorative" term or that otherwise inform and contextualize for the purposes of best wording in the short description:

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/the-pejorative-origins-of-the-term-neoliberalism/

https://s-usih.org/2013/07/is-neoliberalism-a-pejorative/

https://reason.com/2018/12/30/what-does-neoliberalism-really/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3312671/neoliberalism-word-used-often-not-defined/

https://reason.com/2022/02/19/neoliberalism-we-hardly-knew-ye/ Iljhgtn (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

These are not good sources, mostly op Ed’s in libertarian rags like Reason and climate change deniers associated with right wing think tanks. Compare the above with the mostly scholarly sources cited throughout the article. So far no consensus exists for this change. I will restore the previous version for the sake of neutrality but propose the language be restored to the original post in this thread.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with @Iljhgtn that "neoliberalism" tends to be used as a pejorative. It's pretty obvious based on a quick Google search, since the term has been described as "the Left's favorite insult" in New York Magazine, and that is not some right-wing publication. This is another example, and there are plenty of others out there, like this one and more... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that while some sources describe it as a pejorative, not all sources do; most of the cited sources do not. In fact some sources directly challenge this, such as the source I linked to above. And of course the sources selected by the other editor are all highly politically charged (Reason, climate change denier Phil Magness, etc), so it is no surprise that they describe neoliberalism as such, given their ideological stance. So the current version paints a somewhat distorted picture not in keeping with what is said in the lead, that neoliberalism is also a political philosophy and the term most commonly used to describe contemporary global capitalism. It tends to be used as a pejorative, but it is not exclusively used as one. This is why the previous SD I reverted to ("Term for contemporary capitalism") is by far less POV and more accurate than as it currently is ("Pejorative term for contemporary capitalism").--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

There are cases where a term is used to name a distinct reality, and there are cases where it doesn't (usually when it has many different meanings, many different things that it refers to, usages, or is a lens that creates it's own view of reality) in which case any article by that name is actually about the TERM. I think that this is one of the latter. So IMO any short descriptions should say that it is a TERM rather than trying to pretend (and attempt to define) that there is a distinct reality that it refers to. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The objects of the term are economic policies which do not go by that name. So the subject isn't the policies, it's the TERM that characterizes them. A term generally used by persons opposed to those policies. It's somewhat like a pejorative, but pejorative seems like too strong of a word in this case. Any short description is going to be inaccurate. Maybe "term for capitalism generally used by its opponents"? North8000 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that what I reverted to recently "Term for contemporary capitalism" is still more neutral and accurate than the above. Neoliberalism is nearly universally used to describe capitalism of the post 1970s, not capitalism in general going back 500 years, so we should keep contemporary capitalism in the description. That is more significant than including its use as as a pejorative, which is not universal - I reiterate that most sources cited in the article do not describe it as a pejorative. And as another example of notable scholars who are pushing back against the idea that neoliberalism is just a term of abuse, Gary Gerstle, in his 2022 book Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, also describes neoliberalism as a "legitimate term" and also "a creed that calls explicitly for unleashing capitalism's power." (pp.4-5).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

While any discussion has apparently stalled, it appears that the majority of contributors here see the short description describing Neoliberalism as a “pejorative term” as problematic and inaccurate - which it is. I’m going to change it back to the previous version with “pejorative” excluded in a few days unless there are objections raised on talk.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I bought the book you mentioned by Gary Gerstle, Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order and plan to review your claims. If you are able to point me to where it makes the argument that the term is not a pejorative term that might be helpful. In the meantime, do not revert to an unclear consensus where the current pejorative labeling is in fact reflective of the lead and the body. If those were to change, and new consensus were to emerge, then that is something else altogether different. We are not there, and also keep in mind WP:TIND. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

"A term generally used by persons opposed to those policies" was proposed by @North8000, which is essentially the same thing as calling it "pejorative" (which it is), but much wordier. Given that the whole point of a "short description" is brevity, we should try to use as concise language as possible. The current consensus, when then taking policy and guidelines and into account, supports the current short description as both neutral and concise. That said, I personally feel "Pejorative term for globalist capitalism" or "Term of propaganda used mainly by anti-globalists" are all better alternatives to the present wording. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

How about Pejorative term for free-market capitalism (42 characters)? Using free-market capitalism matches the description in the lead. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, that is an interesting suggestion. I was thinking about the term "contemporary" too and I think it is ambiguous or unclear.

What do we all think about, "Pejorative term for post-1970s capitalism", that is 41 characters then! Iljhgtn (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I support your version over another, though is there any input on "Pejorative term for post-1970s capitalism"? I did not see a reply on that one. And @C.J. Griffin regarding, "This has gone on long enough." Keep in mind WP:TIND and do not try and rush through your preferred version. There is no deadline... we will find consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this new version and it is not accurate per my comment below. Given the only consensus version is the one that preceded all of the recent changes, it only makes sense to either revert to that version or remove the SD altogether until a new consensus version can be established.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I support the version written by @GhostInTheMachine, which has not received opposition from anyone else other than you. So even if the suggested versions that I proposed may not have consensus, the later version, "Pejorative term for free-market capitalism", does. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Though if you have yet another version you wish to propose which includes the necessary label "pejorative", I am open to any of your suggestions @C.J. Griffin. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It is been a week ... Pejorative term for free-market capitalism (42 characters)21:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The only thing that I'm adamant about is that it be referred to was a TERM, and it seems like that is not in question. North8000 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This is still inaccurate. The term is only used to describe post-Keynesian capitalism, not free market capitalism in general. For example, you’d never hear someone describe capitalism of the Gilded Age as “neoliberal.” This has gone on long enough. I say either restore the original version as proposed in the first post or just remove the short description altogether.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The timeframe that this term covers is important, and @C.J. Griffin is right to point that out. What is your suggested language then C.J.? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have thoughts on, "Pejorative term for post-1970s capitalism"? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

“Term for post-1970s capitalism” would be the most accurate and neutral imo. You can’t label it as a pejorative the way it is now when it is not universally used as such. Not only that, but a slight majority here see the use of the word “pejorative” in the SD as a problem, so there is clearly no consensus for its inclusion. C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

How do you figure that? I think we meet all consensus major requirements with "Pejorative term for post-1970s capitalism", also importantly that is one of the briefest of all SDs that we have come up with yet. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, I like your thinking on "contemporary", but it was ill defined, and so that is what inspired me to look at a better date window and I settled on "post-1970s". Iljhgtn (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Most Western countries are flexible with some inertia after the change in conditions.

They might exhibit even Keynesianism while maintaining neoliberalism. Actually governments adjust the percentages of eclecticism. We are supposed to (also) write what actually happens, and not only present idealized theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4111:63b1:4c7:98e6:6eee:4627 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The "short description" should be changed, it is not neutral and accurate for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. I think it is an ideological bias against neo-liberalism itself. Of course neo-liberalism is a socio-econonic ideology but it is not a pejorative term in and of itself, it is only pejorative for those with left-wing political and economic views.

Neutrality, please. 87.18.153.78 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I consider neoliberalism to be much more of a term vs an inherent distinct topic. I don't have expertise on the main uses of the term to comment on your post. Except in cases where it is slam dunk obvious / uncontroversial, I consider very short descriptions of anything (e.g. "short descriptions", classifications and infobox info) to be inherently problematic so I tend to avoid them or put little faith in them. But if we have to have something, what is the main common use of the term? Do person who support what falls under "neoliberalism" use the term in a positive sense, or is it primarily used pejoratively by persons who oppose it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The term is very much a pejorative term, but we also discussed this at length and the post 1970s language had the fullest consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the absolutely best, and still only 44 characters (targeting the ideal sub-40 area, but over 4 is not bad at all) language for the short description on this article is, "Post-1970s-era socioeconomic pejorative term". This includes the previously discussed time frame for which this term is most used, as well as the socioeconomic aspect of the term, the actual fact that it is a "term" as @North8000 mentions, and then the pejorative connotations which are essential and intrinsic to the term and its use. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done — changed to Post-1970s socio-econonic ideology. Peaceray (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Undone. The "pejorative term" aspect of the short description was the most solidified of all aspect of prior discussions. If the language of the short description is going to further change, we can discuss that here again (after reviewing prior discussions exhaustively had below), but the "pejorative" component was quite deeply established. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 12 — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking over the comments in the archive above, I fail to see any consensus for the inclusion of "pejorative" in the short description. It looks like an even split to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

We could run an RfC if you think that would help to clear up any confusion on the matter. It does appear to come back fairly often as a question. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Might be a good idea.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

How do you suggest we word the RfC question? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it should ask editors which version is preferable: A: "Term for post-1970s capitalism", or B: "Pejorative term for post-1970s capitalism".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be more generally specific about whether or not to use "pejorative", because at least to me, that is the only part of the SD that I currently think makes sense. I am not edit warring the rest, but frankly it does not appear to me to be supported by the best sources whereas pejorative certainly is. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree, as the majority of academic sources in the article make no such distinction. Only a small minority of sources describe the term as a pejorative. It is also described in some sources as the term most widely used in scholarship on the subject of the societal transformations that resulted from market-based reforms of the 70s and 80s and especially after the Cold War, which no one disputes occurred. If "pejorative" must be mentioned in the SD, that it is "widely used in scholarship" should also be included per NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Is the term Neoliberalism "most often used perjoratively" or is it "primarily employed to delineate the societel transformation resulting from market-based reforms"? Mattrue2020 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It can be both according to cited sources. It is, by far, the most widely used term in scholarship to describe the sweeping market-based reforms starting in the 1970s and the societal consequences of such reforms, but it is sometimes, but not always, used by critical scholars in a pejorative way.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't like that the article treats "neoliberalism" as objective fact. I think the language in stuff like the lede should be toned down a bit and stuff about the criticisms of it as a useful concept need expansion. We need more emphasis on the fact that it's a term generally not used in fields like economics, for instance.

Here are some good highly-cited sources on the topic (the Boas/Gans-Morse one is already used):

• Venugopal, Rajesh. (2015). Neoliberalism as concept. Economy and Society
• Dunn, B.. (2016). Against neoliberalism as a concept. Capital & Class
• Storper, Michael. (2016). The Neo-liberal City as Idea and Reality. Territory, Politics, Governance
• Boas, T.C., Gans-Morse, J. (2009). Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan. Studies in Comparative International Development
• Flew, T.. (2014). Six theories of neoliberalism. Thesis Eleven

Eldomtom2 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, no one seriously disputes that the global economic system shifted as a result of pro-free market reforms starting in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s and 90s with the end of the Cold War. The dispute was over what term was best to use to describe this phenomenon. Neoliberalism indeed started out as a term used primarily by scholars critical of these market based reforms, but as myriad sources in the article point out, including the Boas 2009 source, neoliberalism became over time the term most commonly used to describe these phenomena.

Secondly, it seems the debate over this term has subsided in the late 2010s and especially by the 2020s, with IMF publications using the term to describe market based reforms and free market think tanks like The Adam Smith institute also embracing it. For example, I noticed all of the sources you included are at least 10 years old. Post 2020 sources like Gerstle 2022 openly proclaim it is a legitimate term.

Thirdly, I believe there is adequate coverage of this, not only in the lead paragraph but also in the terminology section where the debate is widely discussed. The lead as it is now took a lot of consensus building over several years to prevent constant edit warring over this. That being said, I would have no issue with including some or all of those sources in the aforementioned section. C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Several points. Firstly, I'm not sure that "no one seriously disputes that the global economic system shifted as a result of pro-free market reforms starting in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s and 90s with the end of the Cold War", or to what extent this constitute an "ism".

Secondly, "neoliberalism became over time the term most commonly used to describe these phenomena" - If this is the case, then surely you can point to its widespread use in economics journals. I believe you misread Boas and Gans-Morse on this point - they are specifically arguing that the use of the term indicates one's opinions on the underlying concept.

Thirdly, I don't see the relevance of Gerstle 2022. Is it supposed to trump any source published before 2022?

Fourthly, I don't think there is adequate coverage. Those who think it isn't a useful term get only two sentences, which are followed by several sentences defending the term. I think we need a bit more so readers can understand the arguments against the term. In particular I want to see the bits in Venugopal 2015 (pages 15-17) about the term's absence from economics to be included.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The notion that capitalism has changed since the 1970s is hardly controversial (See Capitalism 3.0, p. 186). I'd be surprised if anyone could seriously dispute that social democratic/Keynesian economic models have been reduced or supplanted by pro-market based policies and reforms throughout the Western world in the late 20th century. We even see this in Scandinavian countries, the most robust social democracies, with inequality growing there. And with the end of communism as a global alternative it quickly became a global phenomenon, with radical pro-market reforms taking place in the former socialist bloc and even in China under the CPC in the late 1990s and 2000s.

I'm not referring to just economic journals but scholarship across the board. It is not too surprising that the term is more widely used by historians, anthropologists and others in the humanities and social sciences and not so much by mainstream economists, given that the term itself has its origins among critical scholars of pro-market reforms and most mainstream economists are unabashedly pro-capitalist. Regarding the Boas and Gans-Morse, it explicitly states that this term is the most widely used and has supplanted other terms with a similar meaning to describe the same phenomena:

"Neoliberalism is now a predominant concept in scholarly writing on development and political economy, far outpacing related terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus, and even market reform."

The relevance of the Gerstle source is merely providing an example of more recent scholarship, from a prominent historian, which describes the term as legitimate and as evidence that the debate over this by the 2020s seems to be waining. I never said it trumps any source before this time.

I disagreee and believe that the coverage is adequate given it is a clear minority of cited sources from the 2010s which claim the term is nothing more than an ad hominem, a pejorative or oppose neoliberalism as a concept. WP:UNDUE would definitely apply here. Even a quick google search of "neoliberalism" in AI mode fails to mention anything about this dispute over the term or that it's just a pejorative. Nevertheless, I would not oppose including those sources in the article in the appropriate section on the debate over the term, such as the last several paragraphs of the Current usage sub-section of the Terminology section, although looking over it it is clear to me this debate is adequately covered. Regarding the lead, I would not object too much to including a brief comment about it being largely absent from economics journals, based on the Venugopal source, but would oppose a significant rewrite in this direction as the lead now reflects the consensus built over several years of debates on this very topic, which can be reviewed in the archives.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the historical shift toward market-oriented policies since the 1970s is well documented. However, several widely cited sources distinguish between the existence of that policy shift and the analytical usefulness of the term "neoliberalism". Those two things are separate matters.

Many of the sources currently used for the definition appear to come primarily from fields such as geography and sociology. In other disciplines, particularly political science, political economy, and economics, the concept is often discussed differently, with greater emphasis on its contested and heterogeneous character. Multiple widely cited sources discuss the conceptual problems with the term. Including this literature would not constitute undue weight but rather improve balance.

The proposed sources (e.g. Venugopal 2015; Dunn 2016) could be useful for expanding the discussion in the terminology section regarding the conceptual ambiguity and contested nature of the term. After this is done, it would be good if the article summarizes these critiques in the lead section. PJ Geest (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Including further critiques of the term in the lead would open the door to include those who argue that it is a legitimate term. That the term is seen by some as problematic is already represented in the lead. Adding more criticisms and rebuttals would only serve to start new edits conflicts and bloat the lead into a mess. This was a big problem several years ago and the article has been stable since consensus was eventually established on talk. Any inclusion of new material on this in the lead would have to be succinct and balanced, and perhaps should be discussed here prior to implementation. I did recently add some material from Venugopal to the lead per the other editors comment above and the sources he listed in the appropriate section. C.J. Griffin (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin I think improvements to the article can happen as long as they are in line with the guidelines. Maybe there are very reliable sources which are more reliable compared to current ones. In that case more reliable sources can be added to the lead or replace less reliable sources. But I agree it is better to improve things in a gradual way for the lead and not rewrite the lead completely without some discussion on the talk page. PJ Geest (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing against improvements to the article, but I would vehemently oppose deleting so-called "less reliable" sources and corresponding material for a different set of sources that pivot the article in a different direction, similar to what happened over the last several years. The sourcing of the article is primarily academic or popular works by academics, including the lead, and the sources presented above in the OP I would not consider superior to what is already present now. That being said I have nothing against including some points here and there, or a "few tweaks in wording" as North8000 put it (I reiterate I added the Venugopal 2015 source myself, with tweaks in the wording). This is why I think, and I'm happy that you agree, that any proposed sweeping changes should definitely be brought here first to avoid edit conflicts. C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that, with a few glaring exceptions (such as the first sentence) the lead sort of does what you advocate. We should recognize that "Neoliberalism" is a word in the English language and not necessarily a distinct and defined topic. I think that in reality the term is a lens for viewing and naming a vague wide range of economic policies and approaches. I think that a few tweaks in wording that clarify this (shifting towards acknowledging that we are covering a term, not a distinct defined topic) would help much. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The current lead notes that the term has multiple competing definitions, but it does not summarize the main categories of definitions identified in the literature. For example, neoliberalism as a political ideology, a policy program, a form of governance, a label for particular policy regimes in specific historical contexts, or other main categories. PJ Geest (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

No disagreement there. My answer limited to / only in the context of the concern expressed in the OP. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not oppose including material that elaborates on these categories in the lead. C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

To response to C.J. Griffin's points:

"The notion that capitalism has changed since the 1970s is hardly controversial (See Capitalism 3.0, p. 186)." - I'd prefer a source that isn't clearly partisan.
"I'd be surprised if anyone could seriously dispute that social democratic/Keynesian economic models have been reduced or supplanted by pro-market based policies and reforms throughout the Western world in the late 20th century." - are you making the argument that the direction of travel in all countries at all times has been away from "social democratic/Keynesian economic models" and towards "pro-market based policies and reforms"? Furthermore, "neoliberalism" is often conceptualised as something much more than free-market policies.
"We even see this in Scandinavian countries, the most robust social democracies, with inequality growing there." - Inequality = Neoliberalism?
"I'm not referring to just economic journals but scholarship across the board." - Your next sentence indicates why I consider economics journals important here.
"It is not too surprising that the term is more widely used by historians, anthropologists and others in the humanities and social sciences and not so much by mainstream economists, given that the term itself has its origins among critical scholars of pro-market reforms and most mainstream economists are unabashedly pro-capitalist." - Well, this is part of the problem. You appear to effectively be treating economics as an inferior field to history/anthropology/etc. Surely that a field closely connected to the subject does not use the term is a key fact? Without it this article is essentially a POVFORK.
I'm not sure how Gerstle 2022 is meant to indicate that "debate over this by the 2020s seems to be waning".

I agree with everything PJ Geest says. I am willing to settle with minor changes to the article but believe the article must contain information about the term's unpopularity in economics. I think C.J. Griffin's edit is a good start but I don't like the implicit connection between "free-market proponents" and "economics journals".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

"I'd prefer a source that isn't clearly partisan." Dani Rodrik seems pretty mainstream to me. And he's an economist!

"are you making the argument that the direction of travel in all countries at all times has been away from "social democratic/Keynesian economic models" and towards "pro-market based policies and reforms"?" Absolutely. Myriad sources point that the direction of the global economy, with few exceptions, has shifted away from socialism/social democracy as more countries embraced market-oriented reforms as a result of capitalist globalization following the end of the Cold War. Policies associated with the "Washington consensus" were strongly advocated by U.S.-backed institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

"Inequality = Neoliberalism?" Yes and no. Inequality existed before neoliberalism of course, but the implementation of neoliberal policies over the last several decades, including deregulation, privatization and especially austerity, is strongly associated with increased levels of inequality. The U.S. is a perfect example. Tent cities and mass homelessness mostly disappeared during the height of the Keynesian era, but rapidly reappeared during the Reagan era and beyond (Don Mitchell, 2020, p 63). Meanwhile on the flip side the wealth of the rich as increased exponentially.

"Furthermore, "neoliberalism" is often conceptualised as something much more than free-market policies." Agreed.

"Well, this is part of the problem. You appear to effectively be treating economics as an inferior field to history/anthropology/etc." Not necessarily. Like I stated above the term is limited in its use by most mainstream economists so that kind of limits their coverage in an article on the topic.

"I am willing to settle with minor changes to the article but believe the article must contain information about the term's unpopularity in economics. I think C.J. Griffin's edit is a good start but I don't like the implicit connection between "free-market proponents" and "economics journals"" On its face I have no real issue with any of this. But like I mentioned already any sweeping changes, especially regarding the removal of reliably sourced material or significant changes to the lead, should be discussed here first as this article as it exists now is based upon consensus reached here on the talk page over several years. The WP:ONUS is on those editors who are seeking such changes.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

"Dani Rodrik seems pretty mainstream to me. And he's an economist!" - I didn't say fringe, I said partisan.

"Absolutely. Myriad sources point that the direction of the global economy, with few exceptions, has shifted away from socialism/social democracy as more countries embraced market-oriented reforms as a result of capitalist globalization following the end of the Cold War. Policies associated with the "Washington consensus" were strongly advocated by U.S.-backed institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. " - This is an extremely strong claim, and I wonder if you can provide quantitative sources for it.

"Not necessarily. Like I stated above the term is limited in its use by most mainstream economists so that kind of limits their coverage in an article on the topic." - See my comment on this essentially making the article a POVFORK.

"any sweeping changes, especially regarding the removal of reliably sourced material" - I didn't say anything about removing material.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)