Talk:Neoliberalism

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)