Talk:Neoliberalism

Differences between Washington Consensus here and in the eponymous article

The list of ten points between this article under Policy Implications and the Washington Consensus articles have some differences which seem to be significant to my non-expert eye. Particularly interesting is point 7:

Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment; -- Washington Consensus

Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country -- this article

However, a quote included on Washington Consensus from Williamson, the author:

"I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization (...I quite consciously excluded that), monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas. If that is how the term is interpreted, then we can all enjoy its wake, although let us at least have the decency to recognize that these ideas have rarely dominated thought in Washington and certainly never commanded a consensus there or anywhere much else..."

Given the clarity of the quotation above, I have changed point 7 in Policy Implications to be consistent with the Washington Consensus article, but perhaps someone with more area knowledge could expand this point to make it clear that neoliberalism includes capital account liberalization as part of its understanding of the Washington Consensus.

--Tommy.rousse (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Non neutral language

As in the Policy implications section. If anyone has the time. --MeUser42 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Extended Definition Pre-addition Feedback

I have been busy beavering away and writing an extended definition section, which is located at User:Aphenine/neoliberalism-draft, and I was wondering, would anyone please be so kind as to give me some initial feedback on it? Eventually, I'd like to add this to the start of the article, as a way of shedding some light on the debate about whether neoliberalism is/is not different from classical liberalism and whether it is a pejorative solely invented by the left by trying to define as precisely and in a way to minimise bias as much as possible.

To give a little context for the reason why I wrote that section and why I think it's badly, badly needed, I tried to write the shock therapy article and I got horribly lost trying to explain the theoretical reasons why shock therapy did or did not work. I knew, from reading lots of stuff on the left, that the theoretical basis for some attempts were tied in with something called neoliberalism and that this was different in some way from normal free market theory which I did not understand. But when I looked up this article, I didn't understand anything any better then I did before and I was even more confused. Being even more confused, I started to look up the term beyond Wikipedia and there I got even more confused, and I started to realise that, basically, the meanings of just about every term in liberalism, not least neoliberalism itself, are completely fluid. No one means the same thing when they use half the terms and Wikipedia is riddled with this too. So classical liberalism can mean economic liberalism, libertarianism or liberalism, while liberalism may mean social liberalism, while economic liberalism may mean economic libertarianism, economic liberalism or the economic component of classical liberalism and so on and so forth.

Reading up about the views of principle figures in the neoliberalism movement didn't help either. For example, the back of my Frederick Hayek book tells me he is the grandfather of neoliberalism. But, even though I haven't managed to finish it, it does not take a genius to figure out that Hayek's views have little to do with Friedman,. While Friedman has little to do with Thatcherism under Tony Blair, which has little to do with Noam Chomsky. In fact, they don't really have much to do with each other, really. But they are all eminent authors/politicians who have written/practised neoliberalism and which other eminent people have looked at and said "that is neoliberalism" and "that is what you should look at to understand it".

This lead me to realise that any attempt to define neoliberalism is imperilled because picking any definition of neoliberalism excludes the others automatically, and this leads to bias which leads to a bad article. Arguing about this article is also becomes pointless, since it is true that, by excluding some definitions, the claim "this is not neoliberalism" will always be true, and debates will happen, and happen again, and everyone will get nowhere really fast and with lots of vigour, because every side is right and arguing at cross-purposes.

However, because I believe that any set of views can be rationalised and unified into a coherent argument no matter how contradictory they seem at first (and this, this is a challenge, if ever I met one), what I've tried to do is present and define all the strands of neoliberalism as accurately as possible so we can all agree about what we're talking about when we decide what we agree on, and what we disagree on. More importantly, I also want to show why what they have in common, how they link to each other and why they all, in the final reckoning, deserve to be in this article. Even if no one wants it to go in the article, it might help other people make more rational decisions about bias and avoid the same old arguments, and I would consider that worthwhile.

Aphenine (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It’s a very ambitious proposal and I see you worked on it for close to a year. It may be good independent research. I’m afraid the ambiguity and confusion over the term “neo-liberal” is out there ... where people use the word. That, sadly, is what the Boas and Gans-Morse study shows. I don’t think we can resolve how the term should be used. What do other people think?

Here’s another proposal for everyone to mull over. I suggest we need an article on economic liberalization in the post-war (post WWII) era. This should be fairly uncontroversial since it is a factual description of liberalization in the world economies. This avoid the classification problem as to whether they are liberal, neo-liberal, mixed economy, laissez-faire, welfare state, crony capitalist, Keynsian regulated macro-regulated, supply-side stimulated, IMF-controlled, etc. Much of the current article is just such a description.

After taking out the post-war history, the neo-liberalism article would just be a small article on the terminology and its changing usage -- since Walter Lippman’s first use of the term to the critics of today. Details about Hayek should be in the Hayek article. Same for Friedman, von Mises, etc. What do people think? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Brilliant.--MeUser42 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

AGREE. The job of WP is not to find a way to 'define neoliberalism', even in an article on neoliberalism. The job of WP is to reflect what the published reliable material says about neoliberalism, even if that entails multiple definitions. We sum up human knowledge here, but do not attempt to add to it. If different reliable and respected authors say different things, then the article must also say different things if it is to be a good article. The article does not have to avoid self-contradiction if the human knowledge on this topic contradicts itself. Neoliberalism features enormously and extensively in academic literature, it is therefore highly notable as what is considered by many, if not most to be the prevailing economic and political philosophy of our time, and the article therefore has to reflect the amount that is written about it and the diversity of the ways it is written about, otherwise the literature is misrepresented. Riversider (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Reversider is of course completely correct. I would add that in such a case where contradictory definitions of a term are used by different people an article on the subject must be careful to use the term in the context of an attribution to a speaker of a class thereof.MeUser42 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I spent over a year on this because it was interesting and because I like to be certain of something before I try to publish. It took me over a year to expose myself to the various viewpoints and come to a decision on how to explore them and structure them. After that the section needed a few iterations in order for me to make mistakes and figure out what I didn't know and then correct them as far as I was able to on my own.

Can I try to sum up what's been said (because I am very confused by what you are trying to say)?

a) Apparently, you all absolutely agree that the divergent views and definitions of neoliberalism are a problem in writing this article, and you have agreed in principle that this needs to be changed, including contradictory ideas if necessary.

b) You disagree, however, in presenting the ideas as a definition, much like I've done. You don't believe it's our job to define anything, just reflect the views that are out there.

c) Despite this, MeUser42 has made the valid point that any article with divergent and contradictory viewpoints loses clarity unless you find some way to differentiate the different viewpoints.

d) Additionally, there is an extra proposal to move the examples of neoliberalism out of the article and into a separate article, leaving this solely as a short article on the changing meaning of neoliberalism.

Have I got that right? Aphenine (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, there are two different objects that have to be distinguished:

1. A political movement in the middle of the 20th century to renew liberalism, that is associated with events like Colloque Walter Lippmann and Mont Pelerin Society and names like Friedrich Hayek, Walter Eucken, Alexander Rüstow, Wilhelm Röpke, Henry Simons and Milton Friedman.
2. A political catchphrase that is used without specific definition to criticize liberal attitudes.

(Neoliberalism#Terminology)

Both objects should be illustrated in the article but seperated. --Obzova (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Those two criteria provide a bad sort for neoliberalism for too many reasons for me to go into. Have you read the section I wrote (what this talk section is about)? I would hope that, having read it, it would be self evidently clear why these are bad sort criteria. If not, I can explain. -- Aphenine (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The job of WP is not to discover anything new, but to describe what is already known. So we can record the different definitions of neoliberalism that exist, we cannot attempt to come up with some novel synthesis of these different definitions. If this leads to 'lack of focus', that is not a problem for the article, it is a problem for those writing the literature we rely on who have yet to come up with a common understanding of the phenomenon. An article on the changing meaning of neoliberalism would need to be titled "Changing meaning of neoliberalism". This article is titled "neoliberalism" which implies that it will inform people about everything notable and from reliable sources that is known about neoliberalism. There is a vast wealth of material that WP would describe as reliable and authoritative, including thousands of peer reviewed articles in academic journals using and describing the term neoliberalism, WP has to reflect this. Riversider (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposel made by Jason from nyc of having a small terminology article linking to a separate article about the privitization seems to me the clearest and most fair, as it does not involve the imposition of labels which the subjects themselves might have rejected, and certainly never used. --MeUser42 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the proposal and strongly support it, with the caveat that we would need to write up a suitable article before we remove it. I've noticed that, in articles where everyone is unsure of the bias, writers tend to get very factual in order to allow the reader to decide for themselves what they think the article means, and this acts as a safety valve for bias in the article. Therefore, to avoid aggravating the general public, I suggest the removal of the liberalisation section is left in until everyone is happy. Ascribing motives to real world liberalisations is a world of hurt that no sane person would want to get into. However, one or two examples might be uncontroversial enough to be left and included, since real world examples are always good.

What I can't get a handle on is how the remaining article will look like and what part (if any), the text I have put up for consideration (and the ideas behind it) will play in this. For example, does the talk about labels only apply to adding those labels into the liberalisation examples, or does it apply to the whole article, and is therefore a criticism of what I've written. Does the fact that WP is supposed to reflect all writing about neoliberal ideas function as a criticism of the fact that I had to be a little creative in christening the different types of neoliberalism in my expanded definition in order to be clear, or is it a criticism of the pervasive bias that leads to people consistently trying to promote one definition over all others. I'm honoured and grateful that I've managed to start a huge discussion, but the discussion has crossed over so thoroughly with what I originally asked in this section that I'm just totally lost. Could we branch out jason from nyc's excellent suggestion into another thread, and do one for the original topic of this section, please? Aphenine (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Aphenine, all of what you wrote should be incrementally merged to the existing article, this produces the best result, as the software industry learned. This produces far superior results then mega-projects developed in isolation. Don't be afraid to make mistakes in the main article. I will help, but I'm not sure how to technically start the split. Who can help here? Jason from nyc? --MeUser42 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry and you are right about getting too far ahead of myself. I like iterative development too, as I used to program, and I deliberately wrote most of the section iteratively. You can see it in the history. Because of this, there are answers to questions like "why five types of neoliberalism?" which I can only answer "because five works, four did not, six might still be needed." I worry, because this subject is so controversial and people have such strong opinions, that any changes I make, though, are going to get questioned, and then I'm going to have to defend myself, and if my only answer is "because it works", I'm not sure how happy that's going to make people. I can remember some of the thoughts I had in making the decisions I did, so I was hoping for some criticism from people who have some knowledge and a general interest in producing a good article (i.e. regulars on the talk page). You lot are a much friendlier bunch, and your objections are likely to be based on actual understanding of the topic. Having said that, this week might not have been the best week for that, because I have an evil cold that is refusing to go away, and I don't think I can deal with any criticism at all while it stubbornly clings on. *sigh*, I do not do ill gracefully.

I want to get some feedback from other sources first, but I could start on the splitting if you would like me too, when I start making changes to the article proper. If that would be OK? -- Aphenine (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my idea. I've been swamped with work and haven't had time to help out. It looks like we have some fair-minded and dedicated editors here. I'm confident you guys (and gals) will do a good job. If I have time I'll try to add my two cents.Jason from nyc (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Aphenine, I think that's very good. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation

Ok, I've had some time to get feedback from other people and I'm going to start carrying out the changes agreed in the last section. This section exists so that I can write out what I'm thinking. The idea being in a crowd-sourced environment, if you see what I am thinking and you can see the grand master plan, then you can work with me on it, or carry on if something were to happen to me and I couldn't finish. It also provides a chance to discuss and disagree before major changes get committed, or just revert and start again if there's a better way of doing it that suggests itself halfway through.

I think I'll start with stating the aim of the reorganisation. The aim is to change this article to recognise that there is not one single type of neoliberalism but many, and to reflect this diversity in this article in an unbiased and accurate way.

So far, the plan for this involves:

1. Merge the changes I have been working on in a consistent way and subject them to popular edit.
2. Separate out the examples of neoliberalism, since it's impossible to say what kind of neoliberalism or even liberalism they correspond to without resorting to bias.
3. Rebalance the article after the previous changes have been made.

The next bit talks about issues relating to creating a diverse article I came across in when I was writing the changes I'm proposing to merge into the article.

Definition vs Terminology

I thought long and hard about how to reflect the different ways neoliberalism is perceived, and I thought that a definition would work best. I thought this would work best because there are lots of terms used to describe the various forms of neoliberalism. Some of them do not use the word neoliberalism at all, but other terms, and sometimes the same term is used for different forms of neoliberalism. This makes it horrendously confusing to write anything about neoliberalism. Writing a definition avoids that entirely. Instead of worrying what people call neoliberalism, it's possible to infer what people meant when it's used and create a self-consistent definition for whatever is being discussed. Much pain is avoided. Terminology is also implies a linguistic element, which would be fun to look at, the changing evolution of the term and the like, but I'm no good at that and I think it would be complicated.

What constitutes a definition of Neoliberalism?

One of the huge problems with doing things with definitions is that there is very little independent research into the different types of neoliberalism. There are very few sources that I've been able to find that provide any acknowledgement of the difference and fewer that even bother to identify the different types. How does anyone decide what constitutes a definition of neoliberalism? It worried me in an article that is supposed to be unbiased and crowd-sourced, someone, somewhere is providing a definition of neoliberalism and controlling the article. This is bad. So I came up with the following criteria:

1. A definition of neoliberalism must be called neoliberalism by a person (or a group of people) who are notable. It must be verifiable that they have called it neoliberalism.
2. A definition of neoliberalism must be logically inconsistent with another definition of neoliberalism.

You'll notice the section I wrote obeys those rules. The only exception is that economic neoliberalism is not logically distinct from philosophical or hybrid neoliberalism, but they are logically distinct from it. If you understand programming, then they are sub-classes of economic neoliberalism. I separated them in order to make the text easier to follow and put the links in the text, not in the way the section headings are arranged, in order not to get too many subheadings, but there's no reason it can't be changed if someone wants to. Each definition also hopefully makes itself clear about why it is distinct from another one.

Also, once something is identified as neoliberalism, I then go to sources that are associated, even if they haven't been directly called neoliberalism by anyone. I don't have a problem with this, because it's logically consistent, but others might.

So why five forms of neoliberalism?

So far, the changes I'm proposing to merge have five forms of neoliberalism in the. There is no reason why there are five. So far, five works well and they obey the rules. As far as I know, I've included every thing that has been called neoliberalism by notable people. There is no reason there can not be more, although I strongly doubt there can be less, because I really can't make them fit together logically, although other people are welcome to try. I have been wondering whether to include a sixth to include libertarian forms of neoliberalism, which argue that economic neoliberalism can be done without any form of state at all using standard libertarian arguments, but I'm still on the fence on that one.

Isn't this original research?

This is worrying me a lot. There are very few sources on classifying neoliberalism that I've been able to find. I may be wrong, but I've taken that to mean there aren't any, and therefore any attempt to rely solely on sources and verifiable material to do this is doomed to failure. So Wikipedians have to do that themselves, which could be considered original research. However, if Wikipedians don't do this, it's impossible to make the article unbiased and neutral, which is also against Wikipedia rules. So I've taken the view that maintaining NPOV is more important and the least of evils. I don't know if that would be a universal view, though. Maybe I shouldn't be worrying about this, as I just found the Wikipedia Be Bold statement and the Wikipedia Does Not Have Firm Rules principle.

Frankly I think it is original research. I also think it is excellent. You need to submit an article describing your categorisation of the different aspects of neoliberalism to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal, or find a way of publishing them in a book. Then we could use them as a structure for the article without having to look over our shoulders. It's great work, but I think the anonymous forum of Wikipedia should not be the first place you share this work. You should get the recognition you deserve for it by publishing in paper publications first. Riversider (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the definition section written by Aphenine is good and am glad to see it included in the main article. I disagree with Riversider that your definition write-up is a form of "original research" that should be excluded. Anything that is not quoted material is technically original. But even acknowledging that there are degrees of "originality" I think you include enough citations to other research to call what you have done summary and review rather than original--you are basically summarizing much of what is known about different definitions of neoliberalism. While I think it is good enough to be included in the main article, relying on an even wider variety of sources (like, for instance, more of the Harvey book) would be one good way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ryry 74.96.46.26 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It clearly is original research, and is of very great quality, giving a unique clear perspective of various aspects of neoliberalism in a way that I've never seen made by anyone else. It's a novel synthesis. Having said that, I'm certainly not going to revert it. I just think it's a shame that the author will not receive the recognition they deserve for their thinking, which they would have done if they'd published in a conventional source first. Riversider (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources describing the contemporary phenomenon of neoliberalism; I really don't think the page is original research, although there may be some originality to the way it's organized. I'll try and sprinkle some sources in there. Groupuscule (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What's with the names?

I had to come up with section headings. Apart from classical and economic neoliberalism, I'm ashamed to admit I made them up. I couldn't see any way around it. Feel free to change them if it makes sense.

Aphenine (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Article now dominated by definitions section

Thanks for all of your work on this! But now it almost seems as though this could be a separate article. I feel as though a lot more needs to be done on the phenomenon itself, as opposed to the definition! IMO this is a really important topic that requires an accessible article. Groupuscule (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Groupuscule, you've hit on and clarified the problem that's been worrying me in a much less clearly formed way for a while. It's not the job of WP to define topics, WP is not a dictionary. Editors have been trying to solve problems with the definition of neoliberalism that are more properly the reserve of those who write the RS's we rely on. These problems are questions like: Is there a difference between 'neoliberal capitalism' and capitalism per se. Some imply that neoliberalism is distinct from other approaches to capitalism, such as 'responsible' 'green' and 'ethical' capitalism, while others suggest that these alternatives are wishful thinking, and neoliberal capitalism is the only kind you're going to get. Riversider (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Byelf2007's edits have been really good. I do still have a nagging feeling that, as per most popular usage, the core definition of neoliberalism is the philosophical idea that markets are the best way to organize social systems. This was previously described (I assume by Aphenine) as "philosophical neoliberalism"--then I changed it to "expansive neoliberalism," in contrast with "limited neoliberalism"... but actually, I think this should just be the definition. Maybe the history of the term dictates something else, but I don't understand how that something else is meaningfully different from laissez-faire capitalism, or liberalism.

I don't want to eliminate all of this work too hastily. Seeking other opinions! Groupuscule (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Key thing to remember is the boundaries of our task as WP editors. Our role is to accurately reflect what the balance of published sources says on a topic. If the published sources contradict each other, we're not required to reconcile them. If published definitions are inadequate, we're not required to improve them. The task of reflecting what authoritative published sources say while maintaining NPOV is large enough without trying to come up with something 'better' than the published sources. The thousands of published sources in respected academic literature demonstrate that this is a notable topic, so we should stand firm on the length and detail included in the article, it's a notable enough historical and economic phenomenon to justify this. Riversider (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True & I agree but are there actually 'multiple definitions' here? The first/original definition mentioned in the "classical section" actually seems to agree with the "expansive" definition, in terms of the "priority of the price mechanism." Is there actually a flavor of "neoliberalism" that doesn't suggest that the price mechanism is a good way to organize social relations, including those that are currently public/governmental?

Thorsen & Lie is the most/only substantial source in the "limited neoliberalism" section, and based on my quick reading of the article, they also seem to think that a hardcore commitment to market rationality in public life is the core. Now, even with this as the core, there are still different interpretations: the article talks about consequentialism vs. deontology as distinct reasons for believing in neoliberalism (and, reasonably, causes for distinct degrees of embracing it. But, IMO the core concept is still the same, and we should build around it.

This is actually already the concept we have as the intro to the article. So I guess all I really think we need is a re-structuring of these two sections now called "Schools." Still not sure what the best strategy would be to do that. Groupuscule (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Agree with decision to reinstate terminology section—perhaps this could absorb more from "schools." Groupuscule (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rebalancing

I've done parts 1 and 2 of the last section.

For number 2, you can see the new article at Economic liberalization in the post-war (post WWII) era, if you're interested. I gave it a quick introduction and also added something about West Germany at the end of WW2 since that's the only liberalisation I know that happened between the end of WW2 and the 1970s wave. Since the new article definitely mentioned post-WW2, I couldn't leave that out. There needs to be some way to link from here to that article, but I haven't figured out a natural way to do that yet.

This leaves number 3, rebalancing. I have two new proposals for the rest of this article that I'd like to discuss. They maybe controversial, so these I want discussed before I'll touch the article any more. Aphenine (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The first proposal is to take the description of the Washington Consensus in the Policy implications section and move it under policy in the Classical Neoliberal section, completely removing the leading paragraph. I believe that would be the best place for it to go and the Washington Consensus ideas strike me as more classical than economic. I know that often they've been interpreted in an economically liberal way and that this would make putting them in the classical section a matter of bias. However, I think the bias would balance out with an accompanying section in the corrupted neoliberalism which talks about how the Washington Consensus has been cherry picked, or the Economic Neoliberalism section could have a policy part of its own, mentioning the Washington Consensus and the economic interpretation. - Aphenine (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The second proposal I have is to remove the Support and Opposition sections, or to change them in some way. I get the feeling that they are a response to the innate bias in the article. The idea was seems to have been that, if the article is biased, it could only be fixed by adding more bias in the opposite way. The Expanded definition section talks about much of the same issues without making any attempt at judgement, so my thought is that they may have outlived their usefulness and that's why I propose they be removed, or something done to make them useful again. Any thoughts? - Aphenine (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the weight of this article (criticisms ext.) belong in the economic liberalism and capitalism articles, not here. What's historic should be moved to historic articles, and this should focus around how the term is used in all kinds of ways. My humble opinion. I think it's a more maintainable and logical structure. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Extreme critic of neoliberalism

1. People who have put him and his statement in a documentary definitely do take him seriously enough.

2. I have only presented his view on neoliberalism, I didn't endorse it or promote it.

Since the topic is opposition and criticism of neoliberalism I have put his view as an example of an extreme and recent critic of neoliberalism.

3. If You have an example of an extreme endorsement, praise, compliment, approval of neoliberalism I don't see a reason why it should not be mentioned too.

After all, at least I am liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.64.17 (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Accused of corruption without any evidence or even discussion and then undone. My entry I mean.

Stalin would be proud.93.138.80.62 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Astonishing fabrication evident on this page

It is flabbergasting how the editors of this page have contrived to construct an argument validating the term 'neoliberalism' when even Harvey and Steger & Roy, listed in the references section but obviously not read very thoroughly by anyone editing this page, clearly state that any such validity must be so inclusive that it could refer to almost any form of economics or politics someone wishes to attack.

What economists and politicians openly declare themselves as neoliberals? If defining features of neoliberalism are so broad that they include elements of every policy in the Western world since WWII, the term is useless as a description of anything at all, and unworthy of all this astonishing collection of trivia, except, perhaps, as a mention about a term latched onto by news media and the international left to refer to something they couldn't really explain.

The bottom line here is that this article also does nothing at all to explain neoliberalism, rather than attempting to suggest that elements of right wing politics and neoclassical economics have been condensed into a nonexistent conspiracy by a shadowy group called neoliberals who no one can point to.

This is why I don't edit at Wikipedia very often any more: the zeal to make something out of nothing has overtaken rationality and any pretense at pursuing encyclopaedic endeavours. Good luck with this ridiculous fabrication. It serves as an example why Wikipedia's credibility is declining steadily. Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Peter. Please assume good faith! Editors have not attempted to 'validate' the term neoliberalism. They have attempted to reflect what at least 90 RS's have said about neoliberalism. It's not WP's job to prove or disprove the truth of the sources it uses. If those sources are peer reviewed or by leading experts in the field, then they are seen as 'authoritative' (which means something subtly different from 'true'). If you dispute the very existence of 'neoliberalism' then your dispute is with each of those 90 sources, rather than with any of the editors who have simply and assiduously attempted to reflect what those sources say, in line with WP policies. A few of those sources are indeed from 'news media', others may well be from the 'international left', others still are from highly respected academics who are leading experts in their respective fields. I don't believe the word 'conspiracy' occurs anywhere in the article. If you have access to sources that dispute the existence of neoliberalism or the assertions of any of those 90 sources, then your input in terms of including information from those sources to correct any perceived imbalance in the article will be valued. Riversider (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

1st time. Hope I don't mess this up. A note about credibility in introduction.

In regards to the previous criticism by peterstremple, it might be that the introduction includes a preponderance of examples that perhaps stand in support of Neoliberal ideals. Several are offered before the first citation. A short paragraph summing up criticisms of the concept are paraphrased above two citations! This comes across as lopsided. More balance might be sought for the introduction of such a controversial topic. 
  Also, using terms such as 'nanny state' and 'dead-hand' without a link to definitions and history can create the interpretation that these are code-words for certain political discourse, which might also lead to the perception of bias. And on a related note the term New Right seemed so striking that it certainly should have an entry and a link of its own. 
   Lastly, on an editorial note, I did not understand the usage of the word 'enforces' in the sentence, 'Neoliberals envision individuals primarily as market participants, and states as enforces for markets.' I'm not sure if this is a typo that should be 'enforcer'. 
   I hope this helps. Keep on trucking!

79.52.120.211 (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Effects of neoliberalism on developing countries

I think we need a section on accounts the effects of neoliberalism on 'developing' / 'third world' / 'ex-colonial' countries (role of World Bank, IMF etc). There's a whole section of literature out there on this aspect of the topic that we've not yet represented adequately in the substantive text, and it's a sizeable proportion of humanity to miss out. Riversider (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)